Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang

Citation preview

Delinquent Boys The Culture of the Gang

by Albert

K.

Cohen

A FREE PRESS

PAPERBACK

THE MACMILLAN

ftb.

•••'

'•«Ww

*

9

IV

COMPANY

*

unf^m uuJkb-i

Delinquent

Boys THE CULTURE OF THE GANG

by Albert K. Cohen

The Free Tress, New York Collier-Macmillan Limited,

London

Dedicated

To

My Parents

Copyright 1955 by The Free Press, Printed All rights reserved.

in the

No

A

Corporation

United States of America

part of this

book may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording, or by any information

storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher.

A DIVISION

The Free Press OF THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

866 Third Avenue,

New

York,

New York

10022

Collier-Macmillan Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-7337 First Free Press

Paperback Edition 1971

Contents I

II

An Unsolved Problem

in Juvenile

Delinquency

11

Facts the Theory Must Fit

21

INTRODUCTION THE CONTENT OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE SOME ATTEMPTS AT EXPLANATION THE CLASS DISTRIBUTION OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE THE SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE III

A

IV

Growing Up

General Theory of Subcultures INTRODUCTION ACTION IS PROBLEM-SOLVING PRESSURES TOWARD CONFORMITY HOW SUBCULTURAL SOLUTIONS ARISE SUBCULTURAL SOLUTIONS TO STATUS PROBLEMS SOME ACCOMPANIMENTS OF THE CULTURAL PROCESS CONCLUSION

System NOT THE WORLD

in a Class

THE FAMILY

IS

49

73

FAMILIES ARE UNITS IN A CLASS SYSTEM JUDGING OUR CHILDREN: THE MIDDLE-CLASS MEASURING ROD

SOCIAL CLASSES AS CULTURAL SETTINGS SOCIAL CLASSES AS TRAINING GROUNDS RESULTANT PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES THE BOTTOM OF THE HEAP: PROBLEMS OF THE WORKING-CLASS BOY

V A

Delinquent Solution WHAT THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE HAS TO OFFER WIIAT ABOUT THE SEX DIFFERENCES? THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE AND THE DELINQUENT

121

INDIVIDUAL

MIDDLE-CLASS DELINQUENCY THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH DELINQUENCY CONTROL

Conclusion

178

Notes

180

Index

195

Preface

to enumerate who, through

all

those on whose work I have built or

criticism

and suggestion, have influenced

the conception or the writing of this book would be impossible. I

must, however, acknowledge

ness to the late sity

and

my

Edwin H. Sutherland

to Talcott Parsons

and Robert

special indebted-

of Indiana UniverF. Bales of

Harvard

University. For her generous assistance in the typing of

the manuscript, I wish to express

Jean Beckhorn.

my

gratitude to Mrs.

CHAPTER

An

I

Unsolved Problem

in Juvenile Delinquency

the expression, "the delinquent subculture/' may be new to some readers of this volume. The idea for which it stands, however, is a commonplace of folk— as well as sci-

When Mrs. Jones says: "My Johnny is good boy but got to running around with the wrong bunch and got into trouble," she is making a set

entific—thinking. really a

of assumptions which,

constitute

thought in the is

when

scientific

more

explicitly,

study of juvenile delinquency. She

affirming that delinquency

sition

spelled out

the foundations of an important school of

is

neither an inborn dispo-

nor something the child has contrived by himself;

that children learn to

members

become delinquents by becoming

which delinquent conduct is already and "the thing to do"; and that a child need

of groups in

established

not be "different" from other children, that he need not

[in

[

12

An

]

Unsolved Problem in Juvenile Delinquency

have any twists or defects of personality or intelligence in order to

become a

delinquent.

In the language of contemporary sociology, she ing that juvenile delinquency

is

a subculture.

is

say-

The concept

modern layman. It refers to knowledge, beliefs, values, codes, tastes and prejudices that are traditional in social groups and that are acquired by participation in such groups. Our American language, political habits, sex mores, taste for hamburger and cokes and aversion to horse meat are parts of American culture. We take for granted that the contrasting ways of Hindus, Chinese and Navahos are for the most part a mat"culture"

is

familiar

enough

to the

ter of indoctrination into a different culture.

tion of culture

is

But the no-

not limited to the distinctive ways of

life

Every

so-

of such large-scale national

and

tribal societies.

numerous sub-groups, each with ways of thinking and doing that are in some respects peculiarly its own, that one can acquire only by ciety

is

internally differentiated into

participating in these sub-groups ly help acquiring

if

he

is

and that one can

scarce-

a full-fledged participant. These

cultures within cultures are "subcultures." Thus, within

American society we

find regional differences in speech,

cookery, folklore, games, politics and dress. Within each

age group there flourish subcultures not shared by iors or elders.

The

long after you and

new

rules of marbles I

and jackstones

its

jun-

live on,

have forgotten them, in the minds of

generations of children.

within subcultures. There

is

Then

there are subcultures

the subculture of a factory

and of a shop with the factory; the subculture of a university and of a fraternity within the university; the subcul-

An Unsolved Problem

in Juvenile

Delinquency

[

13

]

and of a family, clique or gang

ture of a neighborhood

within the neighborhood. All these subcultures have this in

common: they

those

who

are acquired only

by

interaction with

already share and embody, in their belief and

action, the culture pattern.

When we

speak of a delinquent subcultu re,

wavo fjifft

of a

among

th nt has

group s

c ertain

in

somehow become

American

we

speak

traditional

These groups

socie ty.

are the boys' gangs that flourish most conspicuously in the

"delinquency neighborhoods" of our larger American

The members

of these gangs

grow up, some

law-abiding citizens and others to graduate to

and adult forms of

fessional

quent tradition

is

criminality,

but the delin-

kept alive by the age-groups that suc-

ceed them. This book

is

an attempt to answer some impor-

tant questions about this delinquent subculture.

which follow

cities.

become more pro-

to

will prepare the

ground

The pages

for the formulation

of these questions.

A

large

and growing number of students of juvenile de-

linquency, systematically developing the implications of

Mrs. Jones' explanation of Johnny's "trouble," believes that the only important difference between the delinquent and the non-delinquent

is

the degree of exposure to this de-

linquent culture pattern. is

They hold

that the delinquent

not distinguished by any special stigmata, physical or

psychological. slow;

some are

Some

have grave mental

same

is

delinquents are bright, some are

some are not; some and some do not. And the

seriously frustrated, conflicts

true of non-delinquents. Delinquency, according

to this view,

is

not an expression or contrivance of a par-

[

14

An

]

Unsolved Problem in Juvenile Delinquency

kind of personality;

ticular

kind of personality

it

may be imposed upon any

circumstances favor intimate asso-

if

ciation with delinquent models.

a delinquent us say, a

is

Boy

In describing this

"

associates.

cultural-transmission "

we have

ju-

may

mind about Johnny's delinquency. "That

run wild

like

Johnny,

if I

human

being!

never laid

Any

the law to him, he'd be the same way.

and and

theory of

already suggested the main

never been trained to act like a

my kid

1

principal rival. Mrs. Jones' neighbor

different

kid's just If I let

its

process of becoming

difference lies only in the cul-

which the child

venile delinquency

features of

The

Scout.

tural pattern with

be of a

The

the same as the process of becoming, let

down

kid will steal

you don't teach him

right from wrong away with anything." Or her explanation may run like this: "He never had a chance. The way he's been tossed from pillar to post! The way his folks have

cane

raise

if

you

let

if

him

get

always fought with one another and the beat on him!

The one thing

love.

What do you

treat

him

Again,

like dirt if

we

he's never

expect of a boy

when

and the whole family

spell out the

way

had

they've both

is

his

is all

a

little

own

real

people

mixed up?"

assumptions underlying these

two "explanations," we find that they are two variants of a whole class of theories which we may call "psychogenic." These are the theories which are favored by psychiatrists,

especially those of a psychoanalytic persuasion.

These theories have is

in

common

the idea that de linquen cy

a result of ^ome attribute of the personality o f the child,

an attribute which the non-delinquent child does not possess or does not possess in the

same degree. One type of

An Unsolved Problem

Delinquency

in Juvenile

[

15

]

human being is endowed with a fund of inborn or instinctual anti-social impulses, commonly called th e Id. Most people, in the course psychogenic theory holds that every

of

growing up, acquire a capacity

for ^irciimsperlio n_or

prudence, commonly called the Ego They also incorpor.

ate into their

own

personalities, as conscience or

together normauysunice to

Supereg o,

The Ego and Superego hold the Id in check. The de-

the moral co de of their society

.

linquent and the criminal differ from the normal, law-

abiding person in the possession of unusually imperious

Id drives or faulty Ego or Superego development, resulting in the eruption of the Id into illegal acts. This imper-

may be a result of faulty training Here we recognize the substance of our neighbor lady's first explanation: Johnny's Ego and Superego, through the failure of his family to train and discipline him, are too weak to restrain his bumptious Id. 2 Another type of psycho g enictheory does not assume fect mastery of the Id

or parental neglect.

that the impulse to delinquency it

is itself

views delinquency_a sa symptom

ing with,

of,

some underlying problem

or a

inborn. Rather,

method

of cop-

of adjustment.

The

Helinquentdiffers rronTtKe non-delinquent in that he has frustrations, deprivations, insecurities, anxieties, guilt feel-

ings or mental conflicts

which

differ in

kind or degree

from those of non-delinquent children. The delinquency is

often thought of as related to the underlying problem

of adjustment as a fever tion.

Our neighbor

is

lady's

related to the underlying infec-

second explanation

is

a folksy

version of this mental conflict variant of psychogenic theory: as a result of a disturbed family situation,

Johnny

[

16

An

]

Unsolved Problem in Juvenile Delinquency

"mixed up," he has psychological problems, and these

is

problems find their expression through delinquency. 3 JPsychoftenic theories of both classes recognize the im-

portance of the child's social environment in producing the character structure or the problem of adjustment, but give lar

it

relatively little

manner

in

which

weight in determining the particu-

it

finds expression.

of psychogenic theories, the Id all

people. It does not

ence. It

What

is

bition.

or

is

For the

first class

already th ere at^birth in

become criminal through

experi-

criminal from the very start and never changes.

acquired through experience

For the second

mode

is

of adjustment

class, is

is

the shell of inhi-

delinquency as a symptom

contrived or "hit upon"

more

child himself, perhaps through one or

of the

by the

f amiliar

"mechanisms" of substitution, regression, displacement, compensation, rationalization and projection.

dren exhibit the same behavior

it

is

If other chil-

because they have

independently contrived the same solution,

We

have been discussing kinds of

follow that

all

theories. It does not

students of juvenile delinquency embrace

one or another of them as an explanation for quency.

On

all

delin-

the contrary, most students give at least pass-

ing acknowledgment to

more than one kind

of causal

process. Thus, many psychoanalysts, the people most strongly wedded to psychogenic theories, recognize the existence of a kind of delinquent who is not just giving

expression to his Id or working out a problem of adjust-

ment but who has That

and

is,

is

he has

internalized a "delinquent Superego."

internalized the

moral code ^oLhis

acting in accordance with that code, but

it

gmup

happens

An to

Unsolved Problem in Juvenile Delinquency

be a delinquent code.

lytical writers,

It is fairly typical of

[

17

]

psychoana-

however, that they formally concede, so to

speak, the existence of this sort of thing but thereafter, in their actual case studies,

same time most

pay

sociologists,

4

At the

little

attention to

who

are generally disposed

it.

to favor a cultural-transmission theory, feel that there are

some delinquents whose delinquency cannot be explained in cultural-transmission terms.

Many

however, are reluctant to

with psychogenic alterna-

tives, particularly

flirt

those of the

of these sociologists,

more extreme psychoanaly-

tical kind. It

may be that we are confronted with a false dichowe are not really forced to choose between two

tomy, that

conflicting theories.

There

is

the possibility of two or

more

"types" of juvenile delinquents, each the result of a different kind of etiology or causal process: one, let us say,

predominantly subcultural and another predominantly psychogenic. 5 There

is

the possibility of subcultural and

psychogenic "factors" simultaneously but independently

work in the same personality, each providing a separate and distinct "push" in the direction of delinquency, like two shoulders to the same wheel. However, we are espeat

cially interested in a third possibility,

namely, that in the

majority of cases psychogenic and subcultural factors

blend in a single causal process, as pollen and a particular bodily constitution work together to produce hay fever. If this is so,

ways

in

which the two kinds of

We will have unfolds.

then the task of theory

is

factors

to determine the

mesh

or interact.

a good deal to say about this as our inquiry

[

18

An

]

Unsolved Problem in Juvenile Delinquency

In the present state of our knowledge, there

room

for

question and disagreement about the proportion of

all

which depends,

juvenile delinquency

in

is

some way, upon

participation in the delinquent subculture; about the rela-

factors;

between cultural-transmission and psychogenic and about the nature of the culture-transmission

process

itself,

tionship

new

how

persons take over a

subculture. There seems to be

no question, how-

that

ever, but that there is

about

is,

just

a delinquent subculture, and that

is

it

a normal, integral and deeply-rooted feature of the

social life of the

modern American

Now we come

to a curious

city.

gap in delinquency theory.

Note the part that the existence

of the delinquent subcul-

ture plays in the cultural- transmission theories. It

datum, that

as a

is,

as

these theories are concerned is

to explain

how

Now we may

taken over by the child.

there such a subculture?

over"?

is

treated

exists in

The problem with which

the environment of the child.

ture

is

something which already

Why

is it

that subculask:

Why

is

"there" to be "taken

Why does it have the particular content that it does

and why

is it

distributed as

it is

within our social system?

Why does it arise and persist, as it does, in such dependable fashion in certain neighborhoods of our American cities?

Why

does

it

not "diffuse" to other areas and to other

classes of our population? Similar questions

can be asked

about any subculture: the values and argot of the professional

dance band musician,

religious beliefs

and

of college campuses. in

its

own

social class differences in

practice, the distinctive subcultures

Any

right. It is

subculture calls for explanation

never a random growth.

It

has

its

An Unsolved Problem

in Juvenile

Delinquency

[

19

characteristic niche in our social structure; elsewhere

does not "catch on."

It

has

its

]

it

characteristic flavor, quali-

Why these and not others? With respect to the delinquent subculture, these questions are of more than theoretical or speculative interest ties, style.

is a major American community. problem of every sizable No such efforts at control have thus far proved spectacularly successful. While knowledge does not guarantee

alone. Social control of juvenile delinquency

practical

power,

it is

cesses

at

we

improbable that

control without

will achieve striking suc-

some understanding

of the

sources and sustenance of this subculture in our midst.

The problem has

not, to

be

sure,

but there has been remarkably the delinquent subculture

book. tive

been completely ignored

little effort

itself.

That

is

to account for

the task of this

A by-product of our inquiries will be a new perspec-

on the

issue of psychogenic versus cultural-transmis-

sion theories of delinquency.

CHAPTER

II

Facts the Theory

Must

Fit

INTRODUCTION in

the

social sciences

nation have

come

many

to grief

ingenious efforts at expla-

because they failed to respect a

platitudinous but important truth:

if

one wants to explain

some thing which has a number of distinct parts, his explanation must fit all the parts and not just some facet of the thing which happens, for some reason, to intrigue him. Indeed, if he fails to keep in mind the whole, he is not likely to find a satisfactory explanation of the part. This

because any

detail,

taken by

itself,

is

can often admit of a

number of different and equally plausible explanations. To adjudicate among these alternatives we must determine which of them is most consistent with the rest of the facts which make up the remainder of the concrete totality. But we are all too prone to become beguiled by some [21]

[

22

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

particular characteristic, perhaps because

most

easily to plausible speculation.

with details and ignoring contexts,

the most

it is

spectacular or the most annoying or because

it

lends

itself

Preoccupied thus

we proceed

to

expend

our energies and ingenuity on constructing shaky or

irrel-

evant theories.

For example "prostitution" ality," for "sexual

more than

is

immorality" takes

"sexual immor-

many forms,

including

and other "perversions," premarital sexual relations with one's fiance, and heterosexual "promiscuity" with no view to financial gain. None of these things is "prostitution"; no explanation of any of adultery, homosexuality

these things explains "prostitution," although the explanation

may

contain elements that are part of the explana-

tion of "prostitution." Again, divorce

is

not explained by

explaining dissatisfaction in marriage, for dissatisfaction in marriage has other issues than divorce.

And an

expla-

nation of embezzlement which focuses on the sheer criminality of the act

but

become embezzlers nal

is

We

fails

why some people some other kind of crimi-

to explain

rather than

not a satisfactory explanation of embezzlement. see, then,

why

our

task

first

must be to

set forth

clearly the different characteristics of the delinquent subculture, the thing this simplifies

nile crime, will

culture.

We

we

are trying to explain. In one way,

our task. Not fit

all

crime, not even

this description of the

will thus

all

juve-

delinquent sub-

have limited our undertaking and

cannot be held responsible for failing to explain that which clearly falls outside of the task area

Parenthetically,

we may

also

we have

remark that

it

staked out.

would be

Facts the Theory Must Fit

23

[

]

exceedingly presumptuous for us to attempt to resolve, in

one small volume,

all

the problems in the vast area of

juvenile delinquency. In another way,

more

exacting.

description

The thoughtful

of

it

critic will

makes our

bear in mind our

Should our

delinquent subculture.

the

task

theory seem to account plausibly for some of the characteristics of

he

the delinquent subculture but not for others,

will confront us

with our

own

description and require

of us a defense or modification of our theory such that

accounts truly for the delinquent subculture in

and

richness

all

it

its

detail.

In the following pages

we present

a portrait of the delin-

quent subculture. In presenting a thumbnail description of

any widely distributed subculture

do

full justice to

with

it is

impossible to

the facts, for no brief account can deal

the varieties and nuances which actually exist

all

The subcultures

of the medical profession, the professional

gambler or the jitterbug have many local versions, as does the delinquent subculture. Nonetheless,

it is

possible, for

each of these subcultures, to draw a picture which represents certain

themes or

traits

which run through

all

the

variants. This "ideal- typical" or 'full-blown" picture will

be

fully realized in

some

of the variants

and only approxi-

mated, in various degrees, in others. This much, however,

may be

said for our description of the delinquent subcul-

ture. It

is

a real picture,

drawn from

life. It is

the picture

most familiar to students of juvenile delinquency, especially those who, like the group worker, encounter the delinquent gang in alleys of

our

its

cities. It is

natural habitat, the streets and

the picture that stands out most

[

24

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

prominently in the literature of juvenile delinquency.

Compare

it

to a generalized picture of a pear, in

distinctively

pearlike

features

are

which the

accentuated.

Many

pears will look very like our picture; others will only ap-

proximate

it.

will give us a

However,

if

our picture

pears in general from other

which we claim

validity

is

truly drawn,

it

good idea of the shape which distinguishes fruits.

This

is

the kind of

for our portrait of the delinquent

subculture.

THE CONTENT OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE the common expression, "juvenile crime," has unfortunate and misleading connotations. It suggests that we have two kinds of criminals, young and old, but only one kind of crime. It suggests that crime has its meanings and its motives which are much the same for young and old; that the young differ from the old as the apprentice and

we

the master differ at the same trade; that

distinguish

the young from the old only because the young are less

same criminal and more deserving,

"set in their ways," less "confirmed" in the

habits,

more amenable

to treatment

because of their tender age, of special consideration.

The problem

of the relationship

quency and adult crime has many

between juvenile delinfacets. To what extent

are the offenses of children and adults distributed

among

the same legal categories, "burglary," "larceny," "vehicletaking,"

and

so forth?

To what

meaning

for children

extent,

even when the

have the same and adults? To what extent are the

offenses are legally identical,

do these

acts

Facts the Theory Must Fit

[

25

]

careers of adult criminals continuations of careers of juve-

we want

but

We

delinquency?

nile

to

cannot solve these problems here,

emphasize the danger of making

unproven assumptions.

we assume

If

facile

and

"crime

that

is

and adult criminals are practitioners of and if our assumptions are false, then

crime," that child

the same trade,

wide and clear. Easily and unconwe may impute a whole host of notions concern-

the road to error sciously,

is

ing the nature of crime and

causes, derived

its

knowledge and fancies about adult crime, of behavior to which these notions are better to

make no such assumptions;

it is

juvenile delinquency with a fresh eye

what we

juvenile crime)

and

negativistic

We steal

irrelevant. It

is

better to look at

and

try to explain

see.

What we see when we look at the Jme (and we must not even assume all

from our

to a large realm

is

that

delinquent subculthat this describes

non-utilitarian^ maliciou s

it is

.

when peop le stealjhings, they I because they want them. They may want them be- \ usually assume that

cause they can eat them, wear them or otherwise use

them; or because they can

them; or even— if

sell

we

are

\

\

mind—because on some

\

something

/

unconsciously desired but forbidden. All of these explana-

j

given to a psychoanalytic turn of

deep symbolic tions

ing

have

is

a

level they substitute or stand for

this in

means

to

common,

that they assume that the steal-

an end, namely, the possession of some

and that it However, the

object of value,

is,

"utilitarian."

fact

this fact

is

in this sense, rational

and

cannot be blinked— and

of crucial importance in defining our

problem

[

26

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

much gang

—that

stealing has

Even where the value

no such motivation

of the object stolen

is itself

at

all.

a moti-

vating consideration, the stolen sweets are often sweeter

than those acquired by more legitimate and prosaic means. ,

In homelier language, stea]in^fo£ti^eJleJlJifit' and apart

from considerations of gain and profit is a valued activity to which attaches glory, prowess and profound satisfac-

no accounting in rational and utilitarian terms for the effort expended and the danger run in stealing things which are often discarded, destroyed or casually There

tion.

given away.

is

A

group of boys enters a store where each

takes a hat, a ball or a light bulb.

They then move on

to

another store where these things are covertly exchanged

Then they move on to other stores to congame They steal a basket of peaches, desultorily munch on a few of them and leave the rest to spoil. They steal clothes they cannot wear and toys they

for like articles.

tinue the

indefinitely.

will not use. Unquestionably,

most delinquents are from

the more "needy" and "underprivileged" classes, and un-

questionably

many

things are stolen because they are

intrinsically valued. However, a humane and compassionate regard for their economic disabilities should not blind

us to the fact that stealing

means

is

not merely an alternative

to the acquisition of objects otherwise difficult of

attainment. 1

Can we then account for this ing

it

it is

that,

and

stealing

by simply

describ-

as another form of recreation, play or sport? Surely

but

why is

this

form of play so attractive to some

so unappealing to others?

pinball,

number

Mountain climbing,

chess;

pools and bingo are also different kinds

Facts the Theory Must Fit

of recreation.

Each

[

]

from

of us, child or adult, can choose

a host of alternative means for satisfying our

27

common

"need" for recreation. But every choice expresses a preference,

and every preference

reflects

something about the

chooser or his circumstances that endows the object of his choice is

with some special quality or virtue. The choice

not self-explanatory nor

form of recreation

is

among the age, sex and tion. The explanation of they change

is

is it

arbitrary or random.

Each

distributed in a characteristic

way

social class sectors of our popula-

these distributions

and

of the

way

often puzzling, sometimes fascinating and

rarely platitudinous.

By the same

logic,

it is

lem to say: "Stealing

is

an imperfect answer to our prob-

but another

universal desire for status." Nothing

way is

of satisfying the

more obvious from

numberless case histories of subcultural delinquents that they steal to achieve recognition and to avoid isolation or

opprobrium. This

is

an important insight and part of the

we

foundation on which

haunts us:

"Why

is

and a degrading blot If stealing itself is

considerations,

shall build.

is

still

in another?"

not motivated by rational, utilitarian

still less

are the manifold other activities

which constitute the delinquent's there

But the question

stealing a claim to status in one group

repertoire.

Throughout

a kind of malice apparent, an enjoyment in the

discomfiture of others, a delight in the defiance of taboos itself.

We

Thrasher quotes one gang delinquent:

did all kinds of dirty tricks for fun. We'd see a sign, "Please keep the streets clean," but we'd tear it down and say, "We don't feel like keeping it clean. " One day we put a can of

[

28

Facts the Theory Must Fit

J

glue in the engine of a man's car. We would always tear things down. That would make us laugh and feel good, to have so

many

jokes.*

The gang

exhibits this gratuitous hostility

gang peers

as well as adults.

Apart from

toward non-

more dramatic

its

manifestations in the form of gang wars, there

delight in terrorizing "good" children, in driving

from playgrounds and gyms for which the gang have

little

use,

and

hookey and

The same

spirit is

in misbehavior in school.

rules are not

them

itself

may

making themselves obnox-

in general in

ious to the virtuous.

keen

is

evident in playing

The teacher and her

merely something onerous to be evaded.

They

are to be flouted. There is an element of active spite and malice, contempt and ridicule, challenge and defiance,

exquisitely symbolized, in an incident described to the

writer

by Mr. Henry D. McKay,

on the

of defecating

teacher's desk. 2

All this suggests also the intention of our term "nega-

The delinquent subculture

tivistic."

rules, a

design for living which

is

ferent to or even in conflict with the table" adult society. It

that

it is

That

is,

defined

by

its

is

not only

different

norms

would appear

?.

from or

set of indif-

of the "respec-

at least plausible

"negative polarity" to those norms.

the delinquent subculture takes

its

norms from

The delinby the standards of his subculbecause it is wrong by the norms of the "Malicious" and "negativistic" are foreign

the larger culture but turns them upside down. quent's conduct ture, precisely

larger culture. 3

is

right,

to the delinquent's vocabulary

M. Thrasher, The 1936), pp. 94-95.

*Frederic Press,

but he will often assure

Gang (Chicago:

us,

University of Chicago

Facts the Theory Must Fit

[

29

]

sometimes ruefully, sometimes with a touch of glee or

even pride, that he

is

"just plain

mean."

In describing what might be called the "spirit" of the

delinquent culture,

Of the

we have

looms

the gang usually

may

steal

filling stations.

largest. Stealing itself

fruit, pencils, sports

from drunks, homes,

No gang

may

steal

equipment and

stores, schools

and

runs the whole gamut but neither

is it

likely to "specialize" as

and

"solitary" delinquents.

do many adult criminal gangs

More

to our point,

however,

is

the fact that stealing tends to go hand-in-hand with "other

property "trespass,"

offenses,"

"malicious

mischief,"

and truancy. This quality of

fusion of versatility

"vandalism,"

versatility

and malice are manifest

and the

in the follow-

ing quotation:

We

would get some milk bottles in front of the grocery and break them in somebody's hallway. Then we would break windows or get some garbage cans and throw them down someone's front stairs. After doing all this dirty work and running through alleys and yards, we'd go over to a grocery store. There, some of the boys would hide in a hallway while I would get a basket of grapes. When the man came after me, why the boys would jump out of their places and each grab a store

basket of grapes.*

Dozens of young offenders, this

,

can be, and for

a diversified occupation. It

is,

milk bottles, candy, it

its versatility.

"antisocial" activities of the delinquent gangs, steal-

ing, of course,

cars;

suggested also

after relating to the writer

delinquent episode and that, have summarized: "I

•Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency, Vol. II of National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report on the Causes of Crime (Washington: U. S. Gov*ernment Printing Office, 1931), p. 18.

[

30

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

guess

we was

A

just ornery/'

generalized, diversified, pro-

tean "orneriness," not this or that specialized delinquent pursuit seems best to describe the vocation of the delin-

quent gang. 4

Another characteristic of the subculture of the delinis short-run he donism. There is little interest

quent gang

in long-run goals, in planning activities

time, or in activities involving

and budgeting

knowledge and

skills to

be

acquired only through practice, deliberation and study. The

members

of the

gang typically congregate, with no

activity in mind, at

some

street corner,

candy

specific

store or

They "hang around," "rough-

other regular rendezvous.

housing," "chewing the fat," and "waiting for something to turn up."

Thev may respond impulsively

suggestion to plav of mischief, or

ball,

to

somebody's

go swimming, engage in some sort

do something

else that offers excitement.

They do not take kindly to organized and supervised recreation, which subjects them to a regime of schedules and impersonal rules. Thev are impatient, impetuous and out for "fun," It is to

with

little

be noted that

ently delinquent

heed

to the remoter gains

this short-run

and indeed

to think of the delinquent

it

gang

cultivation of juvenile crime.

hedonism

would be

is

and

a serious error

as dedicated solely to the

Even

in the

most seriously

delinquent gang onlv a small fraction of the "fun" cificallv

and

intrinsically delinquent.

run hedonism alone.

On

is

costs.

not inher-

is

spe-

Furthermore, short-

not characteristic of delinquent groups

the contrary, itjs

mmmon

through out the soc ial

from which delinquents characteristically com e. However, in the delinquent gang it reaches its finest class

Facts the Theory Must Fit flower. It is

is

the fabric, as

[

31

]

were, of which delinquency

it

the most brilliant and spectacular thread. 5

Another characteristic not peculiar to the delinquent

gang but a conspicuous ingredient of its culture is an emphasis on £?oup autonomy. or intolerance jpf^jg strain t ,

except from the informal pressures within the group

itself.

members tend to be intensely solidary and imperious. Relations with other groups tend to be Relations with gang

indifferent, hostile or rebellious. ally resistant to the efforts of

Gang members

are unusu-

home, school and other

agencies to regulate, not only their delinquent activities,

but any activities carried on within the group, and to

compete with the gang for the time and other resources of its members. It may be argued that the resistance of gang members to the authority of the home efforts to

may that i

not be a result of their membership in gangs but

membership

in gangs,

on the contrary, is a result of breakdown of pa rental

neffective famil y supervision, the

a uthority

and the

hostility of the child

in short, that the delinquent

gang

toward the parents;

recruits

members who

have already achieved autonomy. Certainly a previous

breakdown

in family controls facilitates recruitment into

delinquent gangs. But

we

are not speaking of the auton-

omy, the emancipation of individuals. vidual delinquent but the gang that

many home

is

not the indi-

autonomous. For

of our subcultural delinquents the claims of the

are very real

the gang

is

and very compelling. The point

is

that

a separate, distinct and often irresistible focus solidarity.

The

claims of the

versus the claims of the gang

may

present a real

of attraction, loyalty

home

It is

and

[

32

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

dilemma, and in such cases the breakdown of family controls is as

much

a casualty as a cause of gang membership. 6

SOME ATTEMPTS AT EXPLANATION the literature on juvenile delinquency has seldom come to grips with the problem of accounting for the content and spirit of the delinquent subculture. To say that this content is "traditional" in certain areas and is "handed down" from generation to generation is but to state the

problem rather than to

offer a solution.

Neither

does the "social disorganization" theory 7 come to grips

with the

facts.

This theory holds that the delinquent cul-

ture flourishes in the "interstitial areas" of our great cities.

These are formerly "go od"

residential areas

which hav e

been invaded by industry and commerce, are no longer residentially attractive,

and are inhabit ed_by_a_hetero^e-

neo us, economically depressed and highly mobile popu lati

on with no permanent stake

in the _co mnrunity.

These

people lack the solidarity, the c ommunity spi rit, the mot ivation and the resident ial stability necessary for organization,

on a neighborhood basisT for the

effective control

argument we may make two answers. First, recent research has revealed that many, if not most, such "interstitial" and "slum" areas are by no of delinquency.

means lacking

To

this

in social organization.

has lived in them, picture of chaos

many such

To

the observer

and heterogeneity which we

in the older literature.

We find,

find

drawn

on the contrary, a vast and

ramifying network of informal associations

minded people, not

who

areas are anything but the

a horde of

anonymous

among

like-

families

and

Facts the Theory Must Fit individuals, strangers to

one another

[

one another and rudely

The

in the struggle for existence.

ization of the

slum

may

lack the spirit

33

]

jostling

social organ-

and the objectives

of organization in the "better" neighborhoods, but the

slum

is

not necessarily a jungle. In the "delinquency area"

as elsewhere, there

is

an awareness of community, an

volvement of the individual in the

lives

neighborhood, a concern about his reputation neighbors.

The organization which

in-

and doings of the

exists

may

among

his

indeed not

be adequate for the effective control of delinquency and for the solution of other social problems,

and defects

of organization are not to

but the qualities

be confused with

the absence of organization. 8 However, granting the ab-

sence of community pressures and concerted action for the repression of delinquency,

second deficiency in It

this

we

argument.

are confronted It is

by a

wholly negative.

accounts for the presence of delinquency by the absence

of effective constraints. If one

is

disposed to be delinquent,

the absence of constraint will facilitate the expression of these impulses. It will not, however, account for the pres-

ence of these impulses. The social disorganization argu-

ment

leaves

open the question of the origin of the im-

pulse, of the peculiar content

and

spirit of

the delinquent

subculture.

Another theory which has enjoyed some vogue

is

the

"culture conflict" theory. 9 According to this view, these ar eas of high mobility in cultural

and motley com position are lacking

un ity. The diverse ethnic and

diverse and incongruent standards

racial stocks have and codes, and these

standards and codes are in turn inconsistent with those of

[

34

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

the schools and other

official

representatives of the larger

society. In this welter of conflicting cultures, the

person

is

him with no

sents

ject to a

and

clear-cut

assimilates none. it

He

develops no respect for thp lpg? l

represents a culture

port nhiss ocial world

j

.

He becomes

which

finds

no s up-

delinquent.

the recognition that there exists a certain measure

of cultural diversity

the boy

and authoritative models. Sub-

multitude of conflicting patterns, he respects none

ord er because

From

young

confused and bedevilled. The adult world pre-

is

it is

a large step to the conclusion that

confronted by such a hodge-podge of definitions

that he can form no clear conception of what is "right" and "wrong /' It is true that some ethnic groups look more tolerantly on certain kinds of delinquency than others do; that some even encourage certain minor forms of delinquency such as picking up coal off railroad tracks; that respect for the courts and the police are less well established among some groups and that other cultural differ-

ences

exist.

Nonetheless,

it is

questionable that there

is

any ethnic or racial group which positively encourages or even condones stealing, vandalism, habitual truancy and the general negativism which characterizes the delinquent subculture. The existence of culture conflict must not be allowed to obscure the important measure of consensus

which ties,

exists

on the

essential "wrongness" of these activi-

except under special circumstances which are consid-

ered mitigating by this or that ethnic subculture. Further-

more,

if

we

should grant that conflicting definitions leave

important sectors of conduct morally undefined for the

boy

in the delinquency area,

we must

still

explain

why he

Facts the Theory Must Fit fills

[

the gap in the particular

way he

The delinquent subculture

of blind, amoral, "natural" impulses

up

in the

tions. It

is itself

its

is

is

at

not a fund

which inevitably well

absence of a code of socially acquired inhibia positive code with a definite

ventional moral flavor, and tion in

]

does. Like the social

disorganization theory, the culture conflict theory best incomplete.

35

own

it

demands

if

uncon-

a positive explana-

right.

Another view which currently commands a good deal of respect

we may

call the "illicit

means" th eory. 10 Accord-

ing to this view our American cult ure, with

strongly

its

democratic and equalitarian emphasis, indoctrinates social classes impartially

status st atus

.

and a sense The s ymbols

of

all

with a desire for high soci al

ignominy attaching to low

of high status are to

social

an extraordinary

degree the possession and the c onspicuous display of ec o-

nomic goods. There is therefore an unusually intense desire for economic goods diffused throughout our population to a degree unprecedented in other societies. ever, the

means and the opportunities

How-

for the legitimate

achievement of these goals are distributed most unequally

among

the various segments of the population.

Among

those segments which have the least access to the leg iti-

mate channels of "upward mobility " there develop strong feelings of depriva tion and frustration and strong in centives to find other means to the achievement of stajusjmd its symbols^ Unable to attain their goals by lawful means, these disa dvantaged segments of the population are under s trong

pressure to resort to crime, the only

to them.

mean s

available

[

36

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

This argument

is

and highly and some older and semi-pro-

sociologically sophisticated

plausible as an explanation for adult professional crime for the property delinquency of

fessional juvenile thieves. Unfortunately,

it fails

to account

for the non-utilitarian quality of the subculture

which we

have described. Were the participant in the delinquent subculture merely employing

illicit

means

to the

end of

acquiring economic goods, he would show more respect for the goods

he has thus acquired. Furthermore, the de-

and the wholesale

structiveness, the versatility, the zest

negativism which characterizes the delinquent subculture are

beyond the purview of this theory. None of the theories considered comes to grips with the data: the dis-

we have

tinctive content of the delinquent subculture.

THE CLASS DISTRIBUTION OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE who are the "carriers" of the delinquent Where

in our social system

is

subculture?

this subculture chiefly lo-

The answer must come largely from statistics compiled by police, courts and social agencies. These statistics,

cated?

however, do not speak unequivocally. those delinquencies which find their

It is certain that

way

into our

perma-

nent records are never more than a fraction of the total

number

of delinquencies.

The

statistics describe, in

other

words, samples of the total delinquent population, not that population

itself,

and the samples may sometimes be The ability to make sound infer-

grossly unrepresentative.

ences about the population from what

we know

samples depends upon experience with

statistics in

about the general

Facts the Theory Must Fit

37

[

]

and with the sources and methods of delinquency statistics At best our conclusions must often be tenta-

in particular.

tive

and uncertain. 11

Apart from the hazards of delinquency eral,

we

statistics in

gen-

face another difficulty. These statistics do not dif-

ferentiate delinquency

which represents participation in we have described from

the delinquent subculture which

delinquency which does not.

quency

the delinquent subculture It is

From

in general to inferences

the statistics on delin-

about the distribution of

we must proceed with caution.

our conclusion, by no means novel or startling, that

juvenile delinquency

and the delinquent subculture

in

particular are overwhelmingly concentrated in the male,

working-class sector of the juvenile population. This con-

however, has not gone unchallenged and

clusion,

fundamental to the argument of of the evidence

Almost

is

all statistical

that the correlation social class

is

in their

so

analyses of juvenile delinquency

phenomenon. Jt

of the police

it is

book that a review

essential.

agree that delinquency in general ing-class

this

is

is

predominantly a work-

logically conceivable,

however,

between juvenile delinquency and

a statistical artifact produced by the biases

and the

courts.

Warner and Lunt,

study of "Yankee City,"

for example,

flatly state:

This disparity [of lower and upper class arrests] is not to be accounted for by the fact that "criminal behavior" is proportionately higher among lower-class juveniles or that there are more ethnic members whose children have been imperfectly adapted to Yankee City. It must be understood as a product of the amount of protection from outside interference that parents can give the members of their families.*

•W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), p. 427.

[

38

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

Thrasher

calls attention to

the existence of delinquency in

"overprivileged" as well as "underprivileged" ties.*

Wattenberg's studies

of all boys with

communi-

whom

the

Detroit police deal, regardless of the history or disposition of the cases, "reveal that a surprisingly large

come from 'good' homes Porterfield* had 337 college

offenders

hoods."*

number

of

in 'good' neighbor-

students, alleged not

be delinquent, indicate the frequency with which they had committed any of a list of 55 offenses. Every one of to

the students reported committing one or more of the offenses.

Men

reporting their pre-college offenses only

averaged 17.6 offenses. These students were compared with a group of 2,049 children charged with delinquency in the Fort

Worth

juvenile court. These children, like

juvenile court sample,

economic

strata.

would represent the lower

For almost every

any

socio-

offense, the percentage

of college students reporting the offense exceeded the per-

centage of alleged delinquents charged with the offense.

That practically all children, regardless of social class, commit delinquencies is beyond dispute. Is there any need, however, to revise our conception that delinquency is

most heavily concentrated

statement of Warner

in the

working

class?

The

and Lunt that there are no social

class differences rests only

on

their claim that their inter-

*Frederic M. Thrasher, "Prevention of Delinquency in an Overprivileged Neighborhood," Proceedings of the National Conference of Juvenile Agencies, XL (April, 1944), pp. 96-106.

W. CXXXI

t William

cation,

Wattenberg, "Boys Who Get in Trouble," Journal of (April, 1948), pp. 117-118.

t Austin L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble, Foundation, 1946).

(Austin:

Edw

Leo Potishman

Facts the Theory Must Fit

views reveal is

this to

39

[

J

be a fact but no published evidence

Wattenberg nor Thrasher, who are both

offered. Neither

serious students of juvenile delinquency, claim that their

observations reverse the conclusions of most other research.

Wattenberg (with

Balistrieri) states, in

recent context: "It

is

American

in large

low

tions

assumed

cities

as

another and more

amply demonstrated that

neighborhoods which have popula-

in the socio-economic scale generally

have high

delinquency rates."* Porterfield's data demonstrate convincingly enough that the child

a delinquency for

is

a rarity.

comparing the

who

member list

in

basis,

however,

relative frequency of

delinquency per

The

college students

child in the different social levels.

were asked

has never committed

They provide no

to report all the delinquencies they could re-

each of 55 offense categories. Furthermore, the

of 55 offenses presented to the college students

is

an

extraordinarily comprehensive one, including, in addition to

the

more

serious

offenses,

such

transgressions

as

"shooting staples," "driving noisily by schools, churches," "prowling," "abusive language," and "loafing in a pool hall."

Granted that such offenses as these may, under some

circumstances, be adjudged delinquent by a juvenile court, the knowledge that the offense histories include

all

delin-

quencies of this order puts an average of 17.6 offenses per

boy

in a

somewhat

less startling

and

sinister light.

The

offenses of the juvenile court cases, on the other hand, are

only those for which children were charged in court during *William W. Wattenberg and James J. Balistrieri, "Gang Membership and Juvenile Misconduct," American Sociological Review, XV ( December, 1950), 746.

[

40

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

the three years covered dren, therefore,

one or two

by the

study.

were represented

cases.

Most

of these chil-

The study was not designed

that portion of the iceberg

by only

in this study

to reveal

which lay below the

surface.

Comparison between the college students and the court cases

On

is,

therefore, meaningless.

the other hand, several careful large-scale studies

which attempt cial statistics

to

compensate

for the inadequacies of offi-

tend to confirm the popular impression of

the association between class and delinquency. Kvaraceus

studied 761 cases of juveniles in the Children's Bureau. These

known

tion

on

and

recreational agencies

all

children

files

files

of the Passaic

are a reservoir of informa-

to the police, the school, social

and other community agencies

because of delinquent or "bothersome" behavior. Kvaraceus found: "One characteristic the overwhelming majority of the families of delinquent children in Passaic have in

common. That

characteristic

Schwarz analyzed data

is

poverty."*

filed at a similar central register

in the District of Columbia. Less than half of the cases

were known

to the juvenile court. It

that such register data are data,

which are the

is

generally assumed

more representative than court

result of a long selective process of

complaint, arrest, arraignment and prosecution.

It

was

found that the children from the higher income residential areas appeared relatively

more frequently in the court cases

*William C. Kvaraceus, Juvenile Delinquency and the School ( Yonkerson-Hudson, N. Y.: World Book Company, 1945), p. 98. See also his "Juvenile Delinquency and Social Class," Journal of Educational Sociology, XVIII (September, 1944). 51-54.

Facts the Theory Must Fit

[

than they did in the central register.*

can be drawn from

this, it is

If

41

]

any conclusion

that the court cases exaggerate

the proportion of delinquents from the upper social levels.

Despite

this,

the

official statistics

whelming concentration

invariably

show an

over-

working

of delinquency in the

class areas.

The Cambridge-Somerviilo Youth Study

bears,

only indirectly, on the representativeness of tics.

A

total of

though

official statis-

114 "underprivileged" boys were studied

from their eleventh to their sixteenth years by case workers enjoying their confidence.

Of these

had

114, 101

all

been more or less serious juvenile offenders, but complaints It was had committed a minimum of 6,416 infractions of the law during the five-year period, but only 95 of these infractions became

were registered

in court against only

40 of them.

conservatively estimated that the total group

a matter of

official

upper-class children

many delinquencies of way into the police apparently true also of many

complaint. If

fail to find their

and court records, the same

is

delinquencies of working-class children, and conceivably

even more

true.

The same study revealed

that in the main,

official

quent than those of the

unofficial group,

that the sample described select the

more

by the

more frewhich suggests

offenders were

the transgressions of the

official statistics

tends to

'

serious offenders. 1

*Edward E. Schwarz, "A Community Experiment in the Measurement of Juvenile Delinquency," in Yearbook of the National Probation Association,

1945

(New

York: National Probation Association, 1945), pp. 156-

181.

tFred J. Murphy, "Delinquency off the Record," in Yearbook of the National Probation Association, 1946 (New York: National Probation Association, 1946), pp. 178-195.

[

42

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

We grant then, that delinquent behavior is by no means confined to the working-class level and that an adequate

system of criminological theory must eventually cope with this fact.* It

does not follow, however, that the popular

impression that juvenile delinquency

is

primarily a product

and neighborhoods is an illusion. and sentimental humanitarianism

of working-class families

Egalitarian proclivities

dispose us to minimize the disproportionate concentration of delinquency

respected.

The

among lively

the less prosperous, powerful and

concern of middle-class adults, into

which category most of the readers of about the lapses of their

own

this

volume

fall,

middle-class children dis-

pose them to view with exceptional alarm and to magnify the volume of the delinquencies of the children of their

own

class.

we have tends and popular conception of the

Nonetheless, the best evidence

to support the traditional

distribution of juvenile delinquency in the class system.

We cannot assume, however, that all delinquency represents participation in the delinquent subculture. Is the

delinquent subculture concentrated in the same manner as delinquency in general?

There

is

no reason

to think

otherwise. It has been remarked that official statistics

do

not distinguish subcultural from other delinquency. Nonetheless, the conclusions of students

specifically

who have been more

concerned with delinquency as a subculture

tend also to localize subcultural delinquency in the lower socio-economic strata of our society. The principal conclusion of a is

monumental

that delinquency

is

series of

works by Shaw and

McKay

a subcultural tradition in the areas

*See pages 157-169 below.

Facts the Theory Must Fit of the city inhabited

[

by the lower socio-economic

Although the "delinquent subculture" of delinquency statistics, there are a

is

43

]

classes.

not a category

number

of studies

which distinguish group or gang delinquency from other delinquency. These studies furnish us with an important kind of evidence about the distribution of the delinquent subculture, for that

it is

it is

a hallmark of subcultural delinquency

acquired and practiced in groups rather than inde-

pendently contrived by the individual as a solution to his private problems.

Thrasher, in his study of Chicago gangs— the culturebearers par excellence of the delinquent subculture-

found them overwhelmingly concentrated in the tial

intersti-

Hewitt and Jenkins exam-

or slum areas of the city.*

ined 500 case records of problem children at the Michi-

gan Child Guidance

Institute for outstanding

They distinguished

of problem behavior.

as

syndromes '

unsocial-

ized aggressive" syndrome, a "socialized delinquency" syn-

drome, and an "overinhibited behavior" syndrome. The second of these

is

by

definition delinquent

and includes

the characteristics "bad companions," "gang activities/' "cooperative stealing," "furtive stealing," "truancy from

home" and tics,

"staying out late nights."

Of these

characteris-

"cooperative stealing" appears to be the most diagnos-

tic of

the total syndrome.

The

"unsocialized aggressive"

syndrome, while not necessarily delinquent, includes delinquents, also,

many

whose delinquent conduct, however,

not characteristically group activity.

is

A variety of indices of

socio-economic status show the "socialized delinquent" •Frederic M. Thrasher, op.

cit.,

pp. 5-25.

[

44

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

children to be lower in status, on the average, than chil-

dren of either of the other groups.* Wattenberg and Balistrieri

found that gang delinquents were more

likely

than

non-gang delinquents to "come from substandard homes

and

racially

this

study in Detroit

mixed neighborhoods, which .

.

.

tended to be

at the time of

less well-to-do.

The

non-gang group had a higher proportion of youngsters living in

good neighborhoods."* These

statistical studies

tend to confirm the popular impression and the impression

from a larger but

statistically less precise literature that

gang delinquency

is

primarily a working-class phenome-

non.

THE SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE the subcultural delinquency we have been talking is overwhelmingly male delinquency. In the first

about

place, delinquency in general

is

mostly male delinquency.

Estimates of the exact ratio of female to male delinquency

vary greatly. According to arrest data received by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, the

ratio of girls' to boys'

delinquency varies between one-seventh and one-nineteenth; according to juvenile court statistics received by the

United States Children's Bureau, probably a more accurate index for our present purpose,

it

varies

between one-fourth

"Lester E. Hewitt and Richard L. Jenkins, Fundamental Patterns of Maladjustment (published by The State of Illinois, no date), pp. 94, 97, 98, 104.

tWilliam

W. Wattenberg and James

J. Balistrieri,

op.

ct.,

p. 749.

Facts the Theory Must Fit

[

and one-sixth.* Practically all published and other sources agree, however, on quency

is

quency.

at least four times as

way

girls,

are less likely to

On

be referred is

]

from these

male

delin-

as female delin-

when

be referred to the

less likely to find their

when they

into our official statistics than

mitted by boys. to

common

and the courts and therefore

offenses. It

this:

probable that some types of offenses,

It is

committed by police

figures

45

are

com-

the other hand, boys are less likely

for certain types of offenses, notably sexual

not probable that fuller and more accurate

would change the direction of the numerical relationship between male and female reporting of juvenile delinquency

delinquency.

Furthermore, wherever the literature compares male and female delinquency with respect to kind, rather than

frequency only,

it

is

the male delinquency which bears

most conspicuously the earmarks of the delinquent subculture.

One

of these earmarks,

sity or versatility. It

reader with

is

statistics.

it

will

be

recalled,

is

diver-

not necessary here to belabor the Authorities

on delinquency are

agreed that female delinquency, although

it

may

appear

euphemistically in the records as "ungovernability" or

"running away"

is

mostly sex delinquency. Stealing, "other

property offenses," "orneriness" and "hell-raising" in general are primarily practices of the male. 1

•Edward

"

Even

of sex

E. Schwarz, "Statistics of Juvenile Delinquency in the United Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLXI (January, 1939), p. 13. tin this respect, the English statistics parallel our own. See Hermann Mannheim, "The Problem of Vandalism in Great Britain," Federal Probation, XIX (March, 1954), pp. 14-15 on the extraordinary contrast between boys and girls in the number of persons dealt with for malicious States,"

damage by the

magistrates' courts.

t

[

46

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

delinquency the female has no monopoly. ticipants in

Were male

par-

heterosexual relations reported as fre-

illicit

quently as their female partners, the richness and variety of male delinquency

would be even more marked.

Again, the group or gang, the vehicle of the delinquent subculture and one of

marks,

quent

is

its statistically

most manageable

ear-

a boys' gang. For both sexes, the solitary delinthe exception rather than the rule.* However,

is

in interpreting the significance of associates in delin-

quency,

we must

consider Kvaraceus' thoughtful observa-

tion:

Among delinquent girls, a solitary delinquent, a figure not much different from that for boys. Another one third have committed their delinquencies with one companion, leaving one third only whose delinquencies are shared by two or more companions. Since the majority of delinquent girls, regardless of the "reason for referral," are in some degree sexually delinquent, the "number of companions" has a different connotation from what the same item has for boys, the episodes occuring with different boys at different times, except in the comparatively rare episodes of delinquent girls who have sex episodes with groups of boys in rapid sequence. The gang

one

is

in three

largely a boys' institution. is

As we might then expect, the proportion of delinquent more than two participants is much

episodes involving greater

among

boys.

*See Norman Fenton, The Delinquent Boy and the Correctional School, (Claremont, California: Claremont Colleges Guidance Center, 1935), p. 79, for a summary of the studies on this subject. See also James S. Plant, "Who Is the Delinquent?" in Forty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), p. 24 and William C. Kvaraceus, Juvenile Delinquency

and the

School, p. 116.

tWilliam C. Kvaraceus, op.

cit.,

pp. 116-117.

Facts the Theory Must Fit

[

47

]

Thrasher studied 1,313 gangs in the city of Chicago and that, for practical purposes, girls do not form Not more than five or six of the 1,313 were gangs of girls and of these only one was clearly organized for delinquency.* Jenkins and Glickman analyzed data published by Ackerson for syndromes of problem behavior along the lines of the already cited study of Hewitt and Jenkins. As in the latter study, they distinguished a "socialized delinquent" syndrome for boys and another for girls. "Running with a gang" was prominent in the boys' "socialized delinquent" syndrome. However, ". there were so few entries of 'running with a gang' for girls that correlations were not computed for this trait." Although we are

concluded

gangs.

.

.

1"

primarily concerned with delinquency in the United States,

we may

observe that English studies suggest the same

conclusions concerning the role of associates or gang

mem-

bership.*

The purpose

of this discussion has not

been

to

minimize

the volume or significance of female delinquency, nor even to assert that female delinquency does not represent par-

ticipation in a subculture. It

there

is

is

altogether conceivable that

more than one delinquent subculture.

If,

female delinquents also have their subculture,

however,

it is

a dif-

M. Thrasher, op. cit., pp. 228-229. tRichard L. Jenkins and Sylvia Glickman, "Common Syndromes •Frederic

Child Psychiatry," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1946), 251.

Cyril Burt, The Young Delinquent (4th

XVI

in

(April,

ed.; London: University of M. Carr-Saunders, Hermann Mannheim, and E. E. Rhodes, Young Offenders: An Enquiry into Juvenile Delinquency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942), p. Ill; (London: Jonathan Cape, 1941), J. H. Bagot, Juvenile Delinquency

London

Press, 1944), pp. 467-468; A.

pp. 29, 59.

[

48

Facts the Theory Must Fit

]

ferent one from that

belongs to the male

which we have described.* The latter must be stressed that this book

role. It

does not offer a theory to account for

American

society,

nor even

however, choose for

which bulks

its

all

all

delinquency in

male delinquency.

It does,

province that bloc of behavior

largest in the total picture of juvenile crime.

*See pages 137-147 below.

CHAPTER

A

m

General Theory

of Subcultures

INTRODUCTION this

is

a chapter on subcultures in general,

get started and digression

is

how

they

what keeps them going. This seeming

really

an integral part of our

task.

Any

expla-

phenomenon presupposes an underlying theory, a set of general rules or a model to which all events or phenomena of the same class are supposed to conform. Indeed, do we not mean by "explananation of a particular event or

tion" a demonstration that the thing to

be understood

as a special case of the

be explained can

working out of such

when we explain to a why the rubber safety valve on a pressure cooker pops off when the interior of the cooker reaches a certain critical temperature, we first tell him that there are certain a set of general rules? For example, child

well-established relationships

between pressure and tem[49]

[

50

A General

]

Theory of Subcultures

perature (which have been technically formulated in physics as Boyle's

Law) and then we show him

ior of the valve

is

exactly what

that the behav-

we should expect if the rules

which describe those relationships are true. more nor less when we explain the velocity

We

do no

of a falling

body, the acquisition of a habit, an increase in the price

some commodity or the growth of a subculture. In every case, if the general theory which we invoke does not "fit" other phenomena of the same class, the explanation is not considered satisfactory. Thus, if some changes in the price level seem to be consistent with the "laws of supply and demand" but other changes in the price level are not, then the 'laws" are considered unsatisfactory and none of the changes are explained by reference to these laws. of

Therefore, if

somewhat

it is

appropriate that

we

sketchily, the theory

set forth explicitly,

about subcultures in

general that underlies our attempt to explain the delin-

quent subculture.

If

the explanation

is

sound, then the

general theory should provide a key to the understanding of other subcultures as well. If the general theory does not fit

other subcultures as well, then the explanation of this

particular subculture

ACTION

IS

is

thrown into question.

PROBLEM-SOLVING

our point of departure that

all

human

going series of

is

the "psy chogenic" assumption

action— not delinquency alone— is an on-

efforts to solve

problems.

By "problems" we

do not only mean the worries and dilemmas that bring people to the psychiatrist and the psychological clinic. Whether or not to accept a proffered drink, which of two

A General ties to

Theory of Subcultures

[

51

]

buy, what to do about the unexpected guest or the

"F" in algebra are problems

They

too.

all

involve, until

they are resolved, a certain tension, a disequilibrium and

We hover between doing and not doing, doing

a challenge. this or

doing

Each choice is

doing

that,

is

an

act,

it

one way or doing

each act

a choice.

is

consequences which pose

an attempt

at a solution.

problem need imply

new

On

leave us with

new and

unanticipated

problems, but

them ready

it is

distress, anxiety,

bedevilment. Most

solutions, habitual

we have

modes

to our neighbors.

readily resolved.

at

of action

we have found efficacious and acceptable both to and

at least

the other hand, not every

problems are familiar and recurrent and for

act

may

a successful solution, for our choice

unresolved tensions or generate

another.

it

Not every

hand

which

ourselves

Other problems, however, are not so

They

persist,

they nag, and they press

for novel solutions.

What peo ple do depends upon the problems they conIf we want to explain what people do, then we want to be clear about the nature of human problems and tend with.

what produces them. As a ognize that

all

first

step,

it is

important to rec-

the multifarious factors and circumstances

that conspire to produce a problem

come from one

or the

other of two sources, the actor's "frame of reference" and the "situation" he confronts. All problems arise and

all

problems are solved through changes in one or both of these classes of determinants. First, the situation. This is the world we live in and where we are located in that world. It includes the physical setting within which we must operate, a finite supply

[

52

A General

]

Theory of Subcultures

and energy with which to accomplish our ends, and above all the habits, the expectations, the demands and the social organization of the people around us. Always our problems are what they are because the situation limits the things we can do and have and the conditions under which they are possible. It will not permit us to satisof time

fy equally potent aspirations,

e.g.,

to enjoy the blessings

and bachelorhood at the same time. The remay not be enough to "go around," e.g., to send the children to college, to pay off the mortgage and to satisfy a thousand other longings. To some of us it may categorically deny the possibility of success, as we define of marriage

sources

it

success.

To

offers

may extend the possibility of success, it provides may be morally recheating, chicanery and bootlicking may be

others,

it

but the only means which pugnant;

e.g.,

the only road open to the coveted promotion.

But the niggardliness, the crabbiness, the

inflexibility

and the problems they imply are always relative to the actor. What the actor sees and how he feels about what he sees depend as much on his "point of view" as on the situation which he encounte rs. Americans do not see grasshoppers as belonging to the same category as pork chops, orange juice and cereal; other peoples do. Different Americans, confronting a "communist" or a "Negro," have very different ideas of what kind of person they are dealing with. The political office which one man of the situation

sees as a job, another sees as an opportunity for public service

to is

and

still

another as something onerous and profitless

be avoided possible

at all costs.

Our

beliefs

about what

is,

what

and what consequences flow from what actions

A General

Theory of Subcultures

do not necessarily correspond

"The

to

what

is

glass,

and the is

]

We see them

glass consists of the inter-

preconceptions, stereotypes and values

the situation. This glass

53

"objectively" true.

facts" never simply stare us in the face.

always through a ests,

[

we

bring to

our frame of reference.

a "barrier" and what an "opportunity,"

what

is

What

is

a "reward"

and what a "punishment," what is a "loss" and what a upon our goals and aspirations; they are

"gain" depends

not "given" by the bare facts of the situation taken by

itself.

Things are scarce or plentiful, hard or easy, precious or

cheap depending upon our scale of values. Most important of

perhaps, the moral insufficiency of this or that aspect

all,

of the situation, the moral obligation to "do something

about

it"

and the moral impediments

solutions derive not situation but

and easy

to quick

from the objective properties of the

from the moral standards within our frame

of reference. Seen through one frame of reference the

world

is

fraught with dark and frightening dilemmas; seen

through another frame of reference, the "same" world full of

is

promise and cheer.

Our really hard problems are those for which we have no ready-at-hand solutions which will not leave us without feelings of tension, frustration, resentment, guilt, bitterness, anxiety or hopelessness.

These feelings and there-

fore the inadequacy of the solutions are largely the result

of the frame of reference through

these solutions.

It

which we contemplate

follows that an effective, really satisfy-

ing solution must entail some change in that frame of refer-

ence

itself.

The

actor

may

give

which seems unattainable, but

up

it is

pursuit of

some goal

not a "solution" unless

[

54

A

]

he can

first

General Theory of Subcultures

persuade himself that the goal

after

is,

all,

not

must change. He may resolve a problem of conflicting loyalties by persuading himself that the greater obligation attaches to one rather than to the other, but this too involves a change in his frame of reference: a commitment to some standard for worth pursuing; in

short, his values

adjudicating the claims of different loyalties. "Failure" can

be transformed into something

less

humiliating by imput-

ing to others fraud, malevolence or corruption, but this

means adopting new perspectives

He may

oneself.

tainable

by adopting more

but, again, the solution guilt

is

for looking at others

and

continue to strive for goals hitherto unat-

is

efficacious

but

"illicit"

means;

satisfying only to the degree that

obviated by a change in moral standards. All these

and other devices are familiar to us as the psychologist's and the psychoanalyst's "mechanisms of adjustmentsprojection, rationalization, substitution, etc.— and they are all ways of coping with problems by a change within the actor's

A

frame of reference.

second factor

we must

theory of subcultures

is

that

recognize in building

human problems

up a

are not dis-

random way among the roles that make up a system. Each age, sex, racial and ethnic category,

tributed in a social

each occupation, economic stratum and social of people

who have been equipped by

frames of reference and confronted by situations roles.

If

which are not equally

class consists

their society

with

their society with

characteristic of other

the ingredients of which problems are com-

pounded are likened to a deck of cards, your chances and mine of getting a certain hand are not the same but are

A

General Theory of Subcultures

strongly affected

[

by where we happen

to

sit.

55

2

The problems

and preoccupations of men and women are different because they judge themselves and others judge them by

and because the means available to them for realizing their aspirations are different. Jt is obvious that opportunities for the achievement of po wer and different standards

prestige ar e not the

same

for people

ferent positions in the class system;

who

it is

start

out at dif-

perhaps a bit

less

obvious that their levels of aspiration in these respects and therefore

what

it

will take to satisfy

to differ. All of us

of

growing

of us.

vigor

To

old,

must come

are likely also

with the problems

but these problems are not the same for

all

consider but one facet, the decline of physical

may have

very different meaning for a steel worker

and increasing scholarly psychiatric and sociological, on the ways in

and a physician. There literature,

them

to terms

is

a large

which the structure of society generates,

at

each position

within the system, characteristic combinations of personality

and

situation

and therefore

characteristic

problems

of adjustment.

Neither sociologists nor psychiatrists, however, have

been

sufficiently diligent in exploring the role of the social

structure

and the immediate and selection of

the creation

social milieu in

solutions.

A way

determining of acting

is

never completely explained by describing, however convincingly, the problems of adjustment to

which

it

is

a

response, as long as there are conceivable alternative re-

do deal differently with the and these differences must like-

sponses. Different individuals

same

or similar problems

wise be accounted

for.

One man responds

to a barrier on

[

56

A General

]

Theory of Subcultures

the route to his goal by redoubling his seeks for a

more devious route

efforts.

same

to the

An-

game

not

other succeeds in convincing himself that the

worth the candle.

and an abiding

another accepts, but with

Still

feeling of bitterness

Here we

inevitability of failure.

and

Another

objective.

ill

is

grace

frustration, the

shall explore

some

of the

we are participants in a system of social interaction affects the ways in which we deal with ways

in

which the

fact that

our problems.

TOWARD CONFORMITY

PRESSURES in

a general way it is obvious that any solution that runs

counter to the strong interests or moral sentiments of those invites punishment or the forfeiture of satisfacwhich may be more distressing than the problem with which it was designed to cope. We seek, if possible, solutions which will settle old problems and not create new

around us tions

ones. JAJjrst requirement, then, of a wholly acceptable so-

lution

is

tion an d

that

it

good

be acceptable to those on whose cooperawill

we

are

depend ent. This immediately

imposes sharp limits on the range of creativity and innovation.

Our dependence upon our

social milieu provides us

with a strong incentive to select our solutions from among those already established and

known

to

be congenial to

our fellows.

More and

specifically,

the consistency of our

of the frame of reference

those of our fellows

is

on which

own conduct

it is

based with

a criterion of status and a badge of

membership. Every one of us wants to be a member in

good standing

of

some groups and

roles.

We all want to be

A General

Theory of Subcultures

57

[

recognized and respected as a full-fledged

member

of

]

some

age and sex category, as an American, perhaps also as a Catholic, a Democrat, a Southerner, a Yale

a man-of-the-world, a good citizen of

man, a doctor,

West Burlap. For

every such role there are certain kinds of action and belief

which function, as truly and effectively as do uniforms, insignia and membership cards, as signs of membership.

To

the degree that

we

covet such membership,

assume those

tivated to

signs, to incorporate

behavior and frame of reference.

we

them

Many of our

are

mo-

into our

religious be-

norms of speech, political doctrines, and canons of taste and etiquette are so motivated. Not only recognition as members of some social category but also the respect in which others hold us are contingent

liefs,

esthetic standards,

upon the agreement of the beliefs we profess and the norms we observe with their norms and beliefs. However much we may speak of tolerance of diversity and respect for dif-

we

ferences,

cannot help but evaluate others in terms of

the measure of their agreement with ourselves. ple

who

think and feel as

we do we

not have to defend ourselves to them. to our

company and

sent there

is

like to

With peo-

are relaxed.

We

We

do

welcome them

have them around. But in

dis-

and he who

dis-

necessarily implied criticism,

sents, in matters the

group considers important, inevitably

alienates himself to

some extent from the group and from

satisfying social relationships.

Not only is consensus rewarded by acceptance, recogniand respect; it is probably the most important crite-

tion

rion of the validity of the frame of reference

which moti-

man who

stands alone

vates

and

justifies

our conduct. The

I

58

A General

]

in holding

of Subcultures

something dear or in despising some good that

others cherish, whether lief,

Theory

it

be a

style of art, a political be-

a vocational aspiration, or a

only suffers a loss of status; he belief s with

much

of

making money not

not likely to hold to his

conviction. His beliefs will be uncertain,

vacillating, unstable. If others

other hand,

way is

do not question

us,

on the

we are not likely to question ourselves. For any

given individual, of course, some groups are more effective

than others as authorities for defining the validity or plausibility of his beliefs. all

These are

of us, however, faith

his "reference groups."

and reason

alike are curiously

prone to lead to conclusions already current in our ence groups.

It is

hard to convince ourselves that

ing, joining the Christian Science

lican or falsifying our age to

right thing

if

For

refer-

in cheat-

Church, voting Repub-

buy beer we

are doing the

our reference groups are agreed that these

things are wrong, stupid or ridiculous. 1

We see then why, both on the levels of overt action and of the supporting frame of reference, there are powerful

incentives not to deviate from the

ways established

in our

groups. Should our problems be not capable of solution in

ways acceptable

to our groups

ciently pressing,

we

own

as

we

and should they be suffion our

are not so likely to strike out

are to shop around for a group with a different

subculture, with a frame of reference ial.

One

we find more congen-

fascinating aspect of the social process

is

the

continual realignment of groups, the migration of individuals from one group to another in the unconscious quest for a social milieu favorable to the resolution of their prob-

lems of adjustment.

A General

Theory of Subcultures

HOW SUBCULTURAL

[

59

j

SOLUTIONS ARISE

now we confront a dilemma and a paradox. We have how difficult it is for the individual to cut loose from

seen

the culture models in his milieu,

how

his

dependence upon

compels him to seek conformity and to avoid

his fellows

innovation. But these models

and precedents which we

call

the surrounding culture are ways in which other people think and other people act, and these other people are like-

wise constrained by models in their milieux. These models themselves, however, continually change.

participants in the culture

conform to what

The forms

pos-

is

the central

this book.

crucial condition for the is

is it

so powerfully motivated to

already established? This

is

problem of

theoretical

is

How

emerge while each of the

sible for cultural innovations to

emergence of new cultural

the existence, in effective interaction with one an-

number

other, of a

justment. These

of actors with similar problems of ad-

may be

the entire membership of a group

or only certain members, similarly circumstanced, within

the group.

lems

may

Among

the conceivable solutions to their prob-

be one which

is

which does not therefore

not yet embodied in action and exist as a cultural

solution, except for the fact that

is

model. This

does not already carry

the social criteria of validity and promise the social rewards of consensus,

lems of

this

tively than

might well answer more neatly to the prob-

group and appeal to

its

members more

any of the solutions already

For each participant,

this solution

effec-

institutionalized.

would be adjustive and

adequately motivated provided that he could anticipate a simultaneous and corresponding transformation in the

[

60

A General

]

Theory of Subcultures

frames of reference of his fellows. Each would welcome a sign from the others that a new departure in this direction would receive approval and support. But how does one

know whether

a gesture toward innovation will strike a

responsive and sympathetic chord in others or whether

it

and punishment? Potential always problematical and innovation or the

will elicit hostility, ridicule

concurrence

is

impulse to innovate a stimulus for anxiety.

The paradox is resolved when the innovation is broached manner as to elicit from others reactions suggest-

in such a

ing their receptivity; and when, at the same time, the innovation occurs by increments so small, tentative and ambig-

uous as to permit the actor to vorable, without having

retreat, if the signs

become

be unfa-

an unpop-

identified with

ular position. Perhaps all social actions have, in addition to their instrumental,

communicative and expressive func-

tions, this quality of

being exploratory gestures. For the

actor with problems

adjustment which cannot be

of

resolved within the frame of reference of the established culture, each response of the other to

and does

proceed further in a direction in

way

actor says

other participants

and

is

it is

may

congenial to the other and to the

which change

the probing gesture

exploration

what the

a clue to the directions in which change

is

And if common to

will lack social support.

motivated by tensions

likely to initiate a process of

joint elaboration of

new

a

mutual

solution.

My

exploratory gesture functions as a cue to you; your exploratory gesture as a cue to me.

By a casual,

committal or tangential remark just a little

way, but

I will

I

may

semi-serious, non-

stick

quickly withdraw

my it

neck out

unless you,

A General

Theory of Subcultures

by some sign

[

61

]

of affirmation, stick yours out. I will permit

myself to become progressively committed but only as others,

The

by some

final

likely to

to

visible sign,

product, to which

become

we

likewise committed.

are jointly committed,

be a compromise formation of

what we may

call

all

a cultural process, a formation per-

haps unanticipated by any of them. Each actor tribute something directly to the

may

is

the participants

may

con-

growing product, but he

by encouraging others

also contribute indirectly

to

new

advance, inducing them to retreat, and suggesting

avenues to be explored. The product cannot be ascribed to

any one of the participants;

group

We may sion. first

it is

a real "emergent" on a

level.

think of this process as one of mutual conver-

The important thing

to

remember

convert ourselves and then others.

of an idea to oneself

depends upon

others. Converting the other

is

is

that

The

its

we do

not

acceptability

acceptability to

part of the process of con-

verting oneself.

A simple but dramatic illustration may help. We all know that soldiers sometimes develop physical complaints with

no underlying organic pathology. plaints,

which the

We know that these com-

soldier himself

are solutions to problems.

is

convinced are

They enable the soldier to escape

from a hazardous situation without feeling guilty or to place his anxiety, whose true cause he

acknowledge even

real,

to himself,

is

dis-

reluctant to

upon something which

is

generally acknowledged to be a legitimate occasion for anxiety.

Edward

A.

Strecker

"mass psychoneurosis" in World

describes

War I.

an episode of

In a period of eight

[

62

A General

]

days,

on a certain sector of the

front,

ualties" reported for medical aid.

Theory of Subcultures

about 500 "gas cas-

There had been some

desultory gas shelling but never of serious proportions. Either following the explosion of a gas shell, or even without would give the alarm of "gas" to those in his vicinity. They would put on their masks, but in the course of a few hours a large percentage of this group would begin to drift into the dressing stations, complaining of indefinite symptoms. It was obvious upon examination that they were not really gassed.* this preliminary, a soldier

Strecker

tells

us that these

symptoms were

utilized as

"a route to escape from an undesirable situation."

he does not that for

tell us,

What

but what seems extremely probable,

many and probably most

is

of the soldiers, this route

was available only because hundreds of other soldiers were "in the same boat" and in continual communicative interaction before, during and after the shelling. to escape

One

soldier

might be ripe for

dies are not similarly ripe

he

this delusion

will

suading them that he has been gassed, and in not

all

his

bud-

if

they persist

are ripe, they may, in a relatively short time,

collectively fabricate a false

have been gassed.

diers

if

being gassed he will have a hard time persuading

himself. If

all

but

have a hard time per-

It is

but unshakeable belief that

most unlikely that these 500

would have been able

sol-

to "describe all the details with

convincing earnestness and generally some dramatic quality of expression" if

they had not been able to communi-

cate with one another *Edward

A. Strecker,

and develop a common vocabulary

Beyond the

Clinical Frontier

Norton and Company, 1940), pp. 77-78.

(New

York:

W. W.

:

A General Theory for interpreting

of Subcultures

[

whatever subjective

63

]

states they did experi-

ence.

The

literature

on crowd behavior

is

another source of

evidence of the ability of a propitious interaction situation to generate, in a short time, collective although necessarily

ephemeral and unstable solutions

to like problems. Stu-

dents are agreed that the groundwork for violent and destructive

mob

behavior includes the prior existence of

unresolved tensions and a period of "milling" during which a set of It is

common

sentiments

numbers simply serves

in

is

elaborated and reinforced.

incorrect to assume, however, that a certain to

lift

magic

the moral inhibitions to

the expression of already established destructive urges.

Kimball Young observes Almost all commentators have noted that individuals engaged in mass action, be it attack or panic flight, show an amazing lack of what are, under calmer conditions, considered proper morals. There is a release of moral inhibitions, social taboos are off, and the crowd enjoys a sense of freedom and unrestraint.*

He

goes on to add, however:

Certainly those engaged in a pogrom, a lynching or a race riot have a great upsurge of moral feelings, the sense of righting some wrong Though the acts performed may be viewed in retrospect as immoral, and may later induce a sense of shame, .

.

remorse and

.

guilt, at

It is true that

operate under

the time they seem completely justified.t

ordinary moral restraints often cease to

mob

conditions.

These conditions do not,

however, produce a suspension of

and amoral outburst of primitive

all

passions.

•Kimball Young, Social Psychology (2nd ed.; and Company, 1946), p. 398. Ubid.,

239.

morality, a blind

New

The

action of

York: F.

S.

Crofts

64

[

A General

]

each member of the solution

mob is in

Theory of Subcultures

accordance with a collective

which has been worked out during the

tory of the

brief his-

mob itself. This solution includes not only some-

thing to do but a positive morality to justify conduct at

such gross variance with the

mob members'

ordinary con-

ceptions of decency and humanity. In short,

under conditions of

mob

interaction

is

what occurs

not the annihila-

tion of morality but a rapid transformation of the moral

frame of reference. 2

Here we have talked about bizarre and short-lived examples of group problem-solving. But the line between this sort of thing and large-scale social movements, with their elaborate and often respectable ideologies and programs, is tenuous. No fundamentally new principles have to be invoked to explain them. 3

We

quote from one more writer on the efficacy of the

interaction situation in facilitating transformations of the

frame of reference. The

late

Kurt Lewin, on the basis of

his experience in attempts at

guided social change,

re-

marks: .

.

.

Experience in leadership training, in changing of food

habits,

seem

work production,

to indicate that

criminality, alcoholism, prejudices, all

it is

usually easier to change individuals

jojqil£4jnto_a group tha n to c hange any one of them separately As long aT group values are unchanged the individual will .

changes more strongly the farther he is to depart from group standards. If the group standard itself is changed, the resistance which is due to the relationship between individual and group standard is eliminated.* resist

*Kurt Lewin, "Frontiers of Group Dynamics," (June, 1947), 35.

Human

Relations, I

A General

Theory of Subcultures

[

The emergence of these "group standards" frame of reference, It is cultural

is

the emergence of a

65

]

of this shared

new

subculture.

because each actor's participation in

this sys-

tem of norms is influenced by his perception of the same norms in other actors. It is st/bcultural because the norm s are shared only among those actors who stand some how to_profit frp mjiiejn_j.nd pafJTptic

who

find in

one another _a_sym-

moral Himate_ within which these norms

c ome to fniition

and

persis t. In this fashion culture

is

may con-

and modified wherever

tinually being created, re-created

individuals sense in one another like needs, generated like

social system.

may

persist,

which its

by

circumstances, not shared generally in the larger

Once

established, such a subcultural system

but not by sheer

creation, but only so long as

needs of those

who

succeed

may achieve a life who participated in

inertia. It

outlasts that of the individuals

its

it

continues to serve the

creators.

SUBCULTURAL SOLUTIONS TO STATUS PROBLEMS one variant cially

because

of this cultural process interests us espeit

provides the model for our explanation

of the delinquent subculture. Status problems are prob-

lems of achieving respect in the eyes of one's fellows. Our ability to achieve status

depends upon the

applied by our fellows, that

is,

go by

These

in evaluating people.

criteria are

their cultural frames of reference. If

we

an aspect of

lack the charac-

which give status in terms of these we are beset by one of the most typical and yet

teristics or capacities criteria,

criteria of status

the standards or norms they

[

66

A

]

General Theory of Subcultures

human problems of adjustment. One soluwho share such problems to gravitate toward one another and jointly to establish new norms, new criteria of status which define as meritorious the chardistressing of

tion

is

for individuals

acteristics

they do posses, the kinds of conduct of which

they are capable.

It is clearly

the innovation

pant,

if

these

new

criteria

is

necessary for each partici-

to solve his status problem, that

be shared with

be a group and not a private

others, that the solution

solution. If

he "goes

it

alone"

he succeeds only in further estranging himself from fellows.

Such new

status criteria

cultural values different

his

would represent new sub-

from or even antithetical to those

of the larger social system.

In general conformity with this pattern, social scientists

have accounted for

religious cults

and

sects

such as the

Oxford Group and Father Divine's Kingdom as attempts

on the part of people who threatened to create

feel their status

little societies

and

self-respect

whose

criteria of per-

who

participate can

sonal goodness are such that those

status anxiety. They movements as the Nazi Party as coalitions of groups whose status is unsatisfactory or precarious within the framework of the existing order and who find, in the ideology of the movement, reassurance of their importance and worth or the promise of a new society in which their importance and worth will be recognized. They have explained messianic and revivalistic religious movements among some American Indian and

find surcease

from certain kinds of

have explained such

social

other non-literate groups as collective reactions to status

problems which arise during the process of assimilation

A General

Theory of Subcultures

into a culture ple. In this

and

new

social

social

[

drawing closer together

tlie

]

system dominated by white peo-

system the natives find themselves

relegated to the lowest social strata.

ideologies

67

to

They respond by

one another and elaborating

which emphasize the

glories of the tribal past,

merit of membership in the tribe and an early millen-

ium

in

which the ancient glory and dignity of the tribe will 4 All these movements may seem to have

be reestablished. little in

common with

vandalism.

a

gang of kids bent on

It is true that

they have

in

little

theft

and

common on

the level of the concrete content of ideologies and value systems. In later chapters, however,

we

will try to

that the general principles of explanation

show

which we have

outlined here are applicable also to the culture of the

delinquent gang.

SOME ACCOMPANIMENTS OF THE CULTURAL PROCESS the continued bility of

and therefore the viaa subcultural solution entails the emergence of

a certain

amount

action

among

in interaction

serviceability

of

group solidarity and heightened

the participants in the subculture. It

with those

who

his

way

of

life,

new

and

social re-

and the continued existence of

the group and friendly intercourse with

come

only

share his values that the

actor finds social validation for his beliefs

wards for

inter-

is

its

members be-

values for actor. Furthermore, to the extent that the

subculture invites the hostility of outsiders— one of

the costs of subcultural solutions— the cultural

members

of the sub-

group are motivated to look to one another for

[

68

A

]

General Theory of Subcultures

those goods and services, those relationships of coopera-

and exchange which they once enjoyed with the world outside the group and which have now been withdrawn. tion

This accentuates

still

further the separateness of the group,

members on the group and the richand individuality of its subculture. No group, of course, can live entirely unto itself. To some extent the group may be compelled to improvise new arrangements for obtaining services from the outside world. "The fix," for example, arises to provide for the underworld that protection which is afforded to legitimate business by the formal legal system and insurance companies. the dependence of the

ness

Insofar as the

new

subculture represents a

new

status

system sanctioning behavior tabooed or frowned upon by the larger society, the acquisition of status within the

group

is

accompanied by a

To

the extent that the esteem of outsiders

the

members

To

new

loss of status outside the group.

of the group, a

new problem

is

is

a value to

engendered.

problem the typical solution is to devalue the good and respect of those whose good will and respect are forfeit anyway. The new subculture of the community of innovators comes to include hostile and contemptuous images of those groups whose enmity they have earned. this

will

Indeed, this repudiation of outsiders, necessary in order to protect oneself

may

think,

from f eeling concerned about what they so far as to make nonconformity with

may go

the expectations of the outsiders a positive criterion of status within the group. Certain kinds of conduct, that is,

become reputable

precisely because they are disrepu-

table in the eyes of the "out-group/'

A General One

Theory of Subcultures

curious but not

process

what

is

may

uncommon accompaniment

69

]

of this

Fritz Redl has called "protective provoca-

tion." Certain kinds of

inclined

[

behavior to which

we

are strongly

encounter strong resistances because this

behavior would do injury to the interests or feelings of

people

we

care about. These

same kinds

of behavior

would, however, be unequivocally motivated without complicating guilt feelings

if

those people stood to us in the

relation of enemies rather than friends. In such a situation

we may be

unconsciously motivated to act precisely in

those ways calculated to stimulate others to expressions of anger

and

hostility,

which we may then

evidences of their essential enmity and

seize will.

ill

upon

We

as

are

then absolved of our moral obligations toward those persons and freer to act without ambivalence.

The

hostility

of the "out-group," thus engendered or aggravated,

serve to protect the "in-group" from its

way

of

mixed

may

feelings about

life.

CONCLUSION our point of departure, we have

said, is the

psycho-

genic assumption that innovations, whether on the level of action or of the underlying frame of reference, arise

out of problems of adjustment. In the psychogenic model,

however, the innovation actor.

The

problem

is

is

independently contrived by the

role of the social milieu in the genesis of the

recognized, but

its

role in the determination of

the solution minimized. In the psychogenic model, the fact that others

have problems similar to

my own may lead

]

A General

them

to contrive like solutions, but

[

70

process runs to

Theory of Subcultures

my

conclusion unaffected

its

problem-solving

by the

parallel

problem-solving processes of the others.

In the pure or extreme cultural-transmission model, on the other hand, the role of important differences in prob-

lems of adjustment and the motivation of newly acquired behavior by those problems tend to drop out of sight.

Above

all,

the pure cultural-transmission view

pletely to explain the origin of

deed,

if

the view

new

fails to

com-

cultural patterns. In-

we have proposed is

transmission model

fails

correct, the cultural-

explain even the perpetuation

of a cultural pattern through social transmission, for the

recruitment of

new

culture-bearers presupposes life-prob-

lems which render them susceptible to the established pattern.

The theory we have

outlined,

couched in terms

two views

of group problem-solving, attempts to integrate

which, in the literature, frequently stand in presumed contrast to

one another.

be emphasized that the existence of problems of adjustment, even of like problems of adjustment among It is to

a plurality of actors,

is

gence of a subcultural

not sufficient to insure the emer-

solution.

The

existence of the neces-

sary conditions for effective social interaction prerequisite to such a solution cannot ciates

with

whom

is

and finding kindred this process of

be taken

for granted.

Who

asso-

partly a matter of "shopping around" souls.

But circumstances

mutual gravitation of people with

may

limit

like

prob-

lems and free and spontaneous communication among them. People with

like

problems

may be

so separated

by

barriers of physical space or social convention that the

A General

Theory of Subcultures

[

probability of mutual exploration

Free choice of associates power, as parents

Where

dren.

may be

may regulate

and discovery

is

71

]

small.

regulated by persons in

the associates of their

chil-

among people with

like

status differences

problems are great, the probability of spontaneous comunication relating to private, intimate, emotionally involved

matters

is

small.

Where

the problems themselves are of a

peculiarly delicate, guilt-laden nature, like arising in the area of sex, inhibitions

may be

many problems

on communication

so powerful that persons with like

problems

may

never reveal themselves to one another, although circumstances are otherwise favorable for mutual exploration.

the problems themselves

may be

cal that the probability of running into

whose

interests

Or

and atypisomeone else

so infrequent

would be served by a common

solution

is

negligible.

Because of

all

these restraints and barriers to

communi-

cation, as well as the costs of participation in subcultural

groups, which

may sometimes be counted excessive, submay not emerge, or particular individuals

cultural solutions

may

not participate in them. Nonetheless, the problems

of adjustment that they

still

may be

press for

sufficiently intense

some kind

of

and

change that

persistent will miti-

gate or resolve the problem. Since group solutions are precluded, the problem-solving

may

well take a "private,"

"personal-social" or "neurotic" direction

and be capable

of satisfactory description in primarily psychogenic terms.

A state

tures

complete theory of subcultural differentiation would

more precisely the conditions under which subculemerge and fail to emerge, and would state opera-

[

72

A General

]

Theory of Subcultures

tions for predicting the content of subcultural solutions.

Such a task is beyond the scope

more

of hard thinking

and

any must await a great deal

of this chapter, and, in

case, the completion of this theory

research. In this chapter

we

have tried to put on the record, in a highly general and schematic way, the basic theoretical assumptions which underlie the chapters which are to follow. In these chapters, in conformity with the

model we have proposed, we

shall

try to demonstrate that certain problems of adjustment

tend, in consequence of the structure of American society, to occur

most typically

delinquent subculture

is

in those role sectors

endemic. Then

we

where the shall try to

show how the delinquent subculture provides a appropriate to those particular problems and to tion and perpetuation by social groups.

solution

elabora-

CHATTER

IV

Growing

Up

in a Class System

THE FAMILY

IS

NOT THE WORLD

the delinquent subculture working

class. It

is

mostly to be found in the

does not follow that working-class

chil-

dren are necessarily more beset with problems of adjust-

ment than are middle-class children. It has been plausibly argued by some students of social class in America that growing up in the middle class is, on the whole, a more frustrating experience than growing up in the working class. But the problems may be different and to different problems the conceivable alternative solutions different.

The range

of alternatives

may be

may be

further nar-

rowed and the ultimate solution more completely determined by other circumstances which vary with social class, such as the conditions of communication and association, the facilities at one's disposal and other interests and values [73]

[

74

Growing Up

]

in a Class

System

which might be jeopardized by certain of the solutions. It be our task, then, to show that the working-class

will not

male child has problems.

It will

be our task

to

show

that

the kinds of problems which he has and the context in

which they

we have

We

exist are

adequate to motivate the subculture

described. 1

shall not

attempt to catalog, in the manner of a

clinician interpreting the behavior of a patient, all of the

problems which

may

confront children and which

condition the probability, the extent and the their participation in the delinquent culture.

and for that matter every human being,

may

manner

Every

of

child,

hub or nexus and conseproblems. To underis

the

of a unique arrangement of circumstances

quently of a unique constellation of

stand fully the behavior of a particular child, the proper task of the psychologist,

ness fully into account. teristics

it is

necessary to take this unique-

To account

of a culture pattern,

which repeat themselves

for the salient charac-

however, characteristics

in thousands of little collectivities

widely scattered in time and space and which persist while generations of participants

come and

common problems and participation in a common

go,

it is

necessary to

common ground

seek for

for

joint

solution. In our inquiry

into the circumstances of the working-class child

might be capable of generating

this subculture,

for

which

we

shall

be especially concerned with those which are typical, recurrent and shared.

In our treatment of the family differ

also,

from those most typical of the

our emphases shall clinician's

and the

psychologist's case studies. In trying to account for "prob-

Growing Up

in a Class

System

[

75

]

lem" behavior, these case studies typically put the child in the context of his family

and

trace,

with great subtlety

and

detail, the evolution of his relationships

ents

and

siblings.

Depending upon

with his par-

his theoretical leanings,

the analyst or case worker will emphasize this or that aspect of this complex system of relationships. for our purposes,

by and

large, the

however,

is

his

What

is

important

tendency to assume

that,

behavior of the child can be accounted

for in terms of the internal structure of this little social sys-

tem without reference to the larger social system within which it is embedded. That is to say, he tends to assume that the sources of the child's personality, his life prob-

lems and the circumstances that determine their solutions are to be found within the family, that behavior within

and without the family

is

an expression of impulses formed

altogether within the family.

Our own approach family;

if

anything,

in

it

no way minimizes the

magnifies

it.

We

role of the

emphasize, how-

ways in which consequences of family membership depend upon the social world outside the family. We emphasize, first, that the very fact of membership in a particular family, quite apart from the child's experiences within the family, has meaning to the child. Families are not merely networks of social relationships which have consequences for the personalities of their members. Like ball clubs, lodges, churches, ladies' aid societies, boy scout troops and college fraternities, they are recognized social units, designated by names which distinguish them from other units of the same general class and possessed of position, privileges, reputation and status of their own. Mem ever, the

[

76

Growing Up

]

in a Class

System

bership in such a unit or collectivity means that one shares

with the other members a

common name,

and a common status; that, for certain contexts, he is treated not

a

common

iden-

tification

certain purposes

or in

as

an individual

member and represome societies family membership, in conjunction with age and sex, completely overshadows any other characteristics, whether group memberships or personal traits and conduct, in regulating the behavior of members of different families. The situation is akin to the encounter of two soldiers of opposing sides, of two members of opposing football teams. The identification of the opposite numbers group membership suffices to determine one's attitudes and conduct toward him. To some degree such categorical treatment of others simply as members of families exists in all societies. To some de-

with a unique personality but as a sentative of the group. In

gree, therefore, the position of the family in the social structure, particularly

its

status vis-a-vis other families,

determines the experiences and the problems which

members

all

of the family will encounter in their dealings

with the world outside the family.

The

other difference in emphasis concerns the relation-

ship between the child's experiences within the family, especially the impact of the family

upon the personality

of

the child, and his experiences in the world outside the family.

We

have suggested that the

clinician

is

prone to treat the world outside as a theatre in

typically

which the

child acts out the roles and gives expression to the impulses formed within the family. But the world outside may be more properly likened to an arena than a theatre. It con-

Growing Up sists

[

of ineluctable facts, persons

and responses

as objective

within the family.

They

prizes, real barriers

own

System

in a Class

and

activities,

and autonomous

77

]

challenges

as the facts

are not props for a play, but real

and

real deprivations able, in their

right, to gratify, to frustrate

and

to leave their print

on the developing personality. This

is

not to suggest that the world within and the

world without the family are so segregated that what happens in the one has nothing to do with what happens to the other.

They

are rather continuous

common

and even interpene-

and events anywhere in this life-space help to determine events anywhere else and to color their emotional significance. Thus the family, directly through its supervisory activities and indirectly through its influnce on the interests and preferences of the child, helps to determine the kinds of people and situations he will encounter outside. His experie nces in trating fields within a

t

life-space,

he family are the most important determinants of th e

frame of reference through which the child perceives,

int er-

and evaluates the world outside. And the knowledge, habits and skills which he acquires in the home help to prets

determine his capacity for dealing successfully with situa-

when he steps outside the when he seeks his first job, must meet the world on its own terms. In our own inquiry, then, we shall be much concerned with what haptions outside.

home,

like the

But

still

the child,

high school graduate

pens to the child in the family, but in order to appreciate the importance of what happens there

we

shall

have to be

concerned as well with the opportunities and barriers, the challenges and expectations in a wider social milieu.

[

78

Growing Up

]

System

in a Class

FAMILIES ARE UNITS IN A CLASS SYSTEM

when we view in

the family as a collectivity, membership

which confers upon

wider society,

we

2 social class system.

in

American

We

list

of families

certain status in the

known

"social class"

are,

do not

in

bad odor

exist in the

we mean by

your community to

is

prefer to think that the social

Let us make clear what

this book. If a citizen of

a

members a

The word

society.

whatever they

classes,

States.

its

are treating the family as a unit in a

is

him and asked

United

social class in

presented with

to arrange

them

in order of "social standing," "position," "rank," or "repu-

tation" in that

community, with the understanding that

number

of families

position

on the

without too

scale,

much

a

might occupy approximately the same

he

will

probably be able to do so

difficulty. If several citizens are

asked

do the same, they may produce somewhat divergent results, but on the whole they are likely to exhibit remarkto

able agreement. Put otherwise, in any

community there

is

be a high degree of consensus that certain families are "good families," "fine old families," families "high in society"; that other families are "low class" families, "no-

likely to

count" families, families with "no standing" in the com-

munity; and that other families

fall

somewhere

in

between,

"poor but honest" families, "good, solid working-class" families, "respectable middle-class" families.

so because substantially the procedure

We say this is

we have

suggested

has been followed numerous times in sociological research

and consistently yielded these this

results.

For our purposes,

arrangement of families in order of relative rank or

Growing Up

in a Class

System

standing in the community

is

[

79

]

the community's social class

system.

To

community has a social class system is is the same in all communities, even within the United States. The things that people go by in rating or evaluating families— more technically, the say that every

not to say that the system

"criteria of social class status"— are

corded the same weight. teria ily's

we

Among

not everywhere ac-

the most important

find lineage, or the social class status of the

forbears, the length of time the family has

cri-

fam-

been estab-

community, wealth or possessions, ethnic

lished in the

and the husband's same importance in all

origin, style of living, public service, job.

Not each

of these

is

of the

communities, although there students of social class that,

is

general agreement

by and

large, in

among

American

society the prestige of the husband's job "swings

more

weight" than any other criterion.

Communities may

differ also

with respect to the

which families are distributed along

this

way

in

spectrum; the

proportion of families at the one or the other extreme or

within some range in between

may that

differ is,

may

vary.

Communities

with respect to the sharpness of the breaks,

the discontinuity of the groupings in the spectrum.

may be two or three distinct status may be easily placed in one or

In one community there

groupings, and any family

another of these generally recognized "classes." In another

community, there may be a continuous gradation of status with no sharp breaks or barriers defining two, four, or

some other number

communities

may

sij

of clearly distinct classes. Finally,

differ

with respect to the ease and the

[

80

Growing Up

]

in

a Class SystetA

frequency of movement from one status level to another, or "vertical social mobility."

For our present purposes, however, these differences are secondary.

The important thing

is

that in

communities one's family enjoys a certain

and that the

low, vis-a-vis other families,

family

is

and

high or

one of the main determinants of the respect, the

common

am

American

status of one's

deference and the power a person commands. of

all

status,

It is

a matter

observation that in certain respects husband

wife, at least, tend to

good enough

to

be treated

be invited

daughter's wedding, then so

good enough, then so am or fail— without

my

my

is

I. I

as social equals. If I

to your

wife;

home, or to your and if my wife is

cannot climb successfully—

family sharing in

my

fortune. This

is

more than merely a matter of their participation in my earnings. Not only am I the responsible "provider" for their materials needs, the one

who

but the respect that attaches to

and children

"brings

The

show their conby bowing and scraping

as a rule

sciousness of social class position

ence.

the bacon,"

severally.

Of course Americans do not or arrogantly

home

my job attaches to my wife

demanding an elaborate display

of defer-

3 "etiquette of deference in a democracy" forbids

the manifest and explicit acknowledgement of status differences. Status consciousness

is

nonetheless clearly and

unmistakably manifested whenever we admit some people but not "just anybody" to familiar, informal "primary group relations," or seek to be accepted by others to such relations. For mutual acceptance on such terms is an acknowledgement of status equality. We speak here of

Growing Up

in a Class

System

[

81

]

same family dinner, of relaxing in the same living room, of belonging to the same clubs and cliques, of mingling naturally and easily at the same cocktail parsitting at the

ties,

ing

of playing poker, bridge or golf together, of exchang-

gifts,

of going to the movies together, of "dropping in"

uninvited, of dating and marrying. Granting

and withhold-

ing such relationships speaks softly but eloquently of social

acceptance and social distance. These relationships are not exclusively based on social class status position— that

on

is,

status

which one enjoys by

in a particular ily

virture of

membership

family— but they are so bound up with fam-

considerations that students of social class have found

the analysis of these patterns of informal association in a

community one of

its

of the

most useful keys to the discovery

class system.

How

about our children? To what degree are they con-

versant with this social class system and participants in its

workings?

It

would be rash

We

ent state of our knowledge. increasing measure as they in school

and

to speak glibly in the pres-

do know that children, in grow older, sort themselves,

out, into cliques corresponding to the social

class positions of their families.

in a later section.

However,

it

that this selective association,

beyond

cavil,

is

Of

this

we

speak more

which has been established

primarily a result of the children's percep-

tions of the class status of their families. it is

will

does not necessarily follow

To some degree

certainly the result of the perception of personal char-

acteristics

which happen

to

be correlated with

We need more research on the

social class.

extent to which children

respond to themselves and to one another as members of

[

82

Up in a

Growing

]

families rather than as individuals.

Class System

However, we do know

that as the child's sense of self emerges, as his

name—

"Frank" or "Sheldon" or "Karl"— acquires the capacity to

evoke an image which he

identifies as "I"

about which he

and shame,

feels pride

a particular family whose

his

and "me" and membership in

members share the common sym-

bol "Smith" or "Brown" or "Donahue" becomes an integral part of the self. His attitudes

respect, his "ego-involvement"

toward himself,

his self-

become bound up with the

sentiments, the prestige or the ignominy that cling to the

family

can

name

lick

or to any

your father"

member

is

of the family.

"My

father

an early and naive manifestation

and ego-involvement, as are his reon his mother's good name or his pride in the uniform and bearing of his brother in the service. It takes a long time for him to progress from this stage to the point where he can place his own family and others in the prestige continuum in the same way that adults do. But his family, consciously and unconsciously, does what it can to help. The child observes his parents and others of this identification

actions to aspersions

interact with the janitor, the plumber, the doctor, the insur-

ance agent, the bank

He

the landlord.

make, to apply the their families

adults do. signs of

and

He

clerk, the social

learns to criteria

own

his

make

worker, the teacher,

the distinctions adults

they apply and to evaluate

family relative to theirs, as the

learns also to recognize

membership

in a social class

ment, homes, neighborhood and

:

and

to value the

clothing and equip-

cars.

By

the time he

is

eleven or twelve years old his knowledge of the class sys-

tem has grown quite

sophisticated. His estimates of his

Growing Up

in

a Class System

[

83

]

school classmates as "high-in-society," "low-in-society" and

"in-between" show impressive, although as yet imperfect,

agreement with the judgments af

adults. Celia B. Stendler,

one of our most valuable studies of

in

this subject,

observes

that: Sixth and eighth graders correctly associated many symbols with a particular class. They knew that the class to which one belonged was indicated by the kind of job, family and home one had, and the section of town in which one lived. Eighth graders were very specific in their comments, and many of the reasons disclosed very subtle class distinctions.*

The

child learns also from his parents, often under pro-

with whom it is whom one does not play, children whom one does and others whom one does not bring to the house, those with whom his parents like to see him test

from the

child, that there are children

well to play and others with

go camping, swimming or on parties and those

who

are

tabooed. In varying degrees in different families and in different social levels, his parents

show

their approval

and

disapproval of his associates and try to regulate them. Partly,

by

and probably

his parents

is

for the

clearly

most

part, this discrimination

based on personal characteristics

of the children concerned. Partly, however,

it is

categorical,

independent of knowledge of personal characteristics and based on generalized attitudes toward their families. of this purposive control

may be

Much

obviated by the simple

device of living in a part of town where acceptable associates are the only ones available.

vention by the parents

is

But occasional active

inter-

almost always necessary, and this

*Celia B. Stendler, Children of Brasstown (Urbana: University of nois,

1949),

p.

71

Illi-

[

84

Growing Up

]

in a Class

System

intervention serves the function of underscoring the lines that distinguish the various degrees of social acceptability.

At the same time the child ing that he

is

also at the receiving end, not-

welcomed by some and rebuffed by

is

others.

Whatever the psychological processes or consequences involved in this learning process, the child

make the

is

learning to

him make, although and discriminate on the basis of probably lags behind his intellectual

distinctions the adults about

his readiness to select

these distinctions

apprehension of them.

JUDGING OUR CHILDREN: THE MIDDLE-CLASS MEASURING ROD the reader may feel that this picture is overdrawn, it

that

grossly distorts the fundamentally democratic social rela-

tions of

American

society.

Do

not Americans believe and

try to teach their children to believe that people should

be

judged only on the basis of their character, achievements

and

personality, that labels signifying background, group

ancestry but which

affiliation or

tell

us nothing about the

person are not a legitimate basis for judging people?

The answer, of the word,

of course,

is

is

"Yes."

Democracy,

The

not a

fiction.

of his

membership

in this sense

which the child

status

enjoys

by virtue

unit

but one determinant of his respect, his power, his

is

social acceptability.

grudgingly,

determine

if

at

all,

The very

in a recognized kinship

fact that

that family

we acknowledge

membership operates to important com-

status, suggests that there are

peting standards for judgment as well.

Let us turn, however, to the more "democratic" mode of

Growing Up

in a Class

System

[

judgment or evaluation. The child

in

America

85

]

undoubt-

is

edly evaluated, to a greater degree than in most other societies, as

an individual. But

this

does not take us out

of the realm of invidious status distinctions. It takes us,

one in

rather, to a consideration of another status system,

which children of directly compared criteria.

different social levels in terms of the

same

may be and set of

are

"achieved"

In this status system children of any social class

may compete with one democratic.

The cards

another and in this sense are not dealt

and the hands

played for him before the child appears on the scene. ever, this

it

is

all

How-

democracy has certain important implications.

To the degree that ancestry as such is scrupulously ignored, it means that any child may be legitimately compared, to his advantage or his loss, with any other child of the same age and sex. The child's "status universe," the people against

whom

sures himself,

he is

is

measured and against

whom

he mea-

enormously extended. In "undemocratic"

feudal and peasant societies,

it is

assumed that society

is

permanently divided into natural social divisions or orders. Corresponding to each of these orders

is

a different set of

expectations or standards for evaluation of persons. child of a peasant family

is

The

not "ego-involved" in his dif-

ferences from the landlord's son.

They

are in different

status universes. 4

In a society like ours, however, in which a child legitimately compared, in terms of the "all

same

comers" regardless of family background,

it

follow that the ability to achieve these criteria sarily distributed

may be

criteria,

with

does not is

neces-

without regard to family background and

[

86

Growing Up

]

in a Class

System

social class. Systematic class-linked differences in the ability to

achieve will relegate to the bottom of the status pyra-

mid those classes,

children belonging to the most disadvantaged

not by virtue of their class position as such but by

virtue of their lack of the requisite personal qualifications resulting

from their class-linked handicaps. In

short,

where

opportunities for achievement are class-linked, status dis-

content will be generated to the degree that the status sys-

tem

is

democratic, to the degree that the status universe

maximized.

It

becomes necessary

is

for us, then, to consider

the criteria for the evaluation of children in American society

and whether the capacity

criteria

is

There

is

to achieve in terms of those

conditioned by social class position.

more than one

set of non-ascriptive criteria for

differential evaluation of children in our society, criteria carry different

and these

weight in the different social

levels.

We run some danger, then, of oversimplification, and must take care to specify that the norms are most clearly exemplified

we

shall describe here

and applied by what we

shall

loosely call "middle-class" in contrast to "working-class"

people, that

is,

by middle-class

parents, teachers, social

by the adults sponand managing settlement houses, Boy Scout troops, and other agencies for organized and supervised recreation, and, to a considerable extent, by middle-class children. Whether these norms are applied by working-class children or not, these children cannot be indifferent to them. They are the norms of the people who run things in politics, business, religion and education. They are the norms of the distinguished people who symbolize and repworkers, ministers and church workers, soring

Growing Up

in a Class

resent the local

System

[

87

]

and national communities with which the

children identify. Furthermore, even though these norms

have a more tenuous footing in the working middle class, they are the norms also of

own

dren's

draw the in

class

than the

class

many

of the chil-

working-class neighbors. For, wherever

lines

between the working

class

we

and the middle

economic or occupational terms, the resulting

groupings will not be internally homogeneous with respect to cultural beliefs

and

Many

values.

working-class people

will resemble middle-class people with respect to their criteria for evaluating children

that

and indeed,

it is

probable

most working-class Americans are to some degree un-

der the spell of this particular set of norms. refer to

them

Though we

here, then, as "middle-class" norms, they are

really manifestations of the

dominant American value

tem and even working-class children must come

sys-

to terms

with them.

These norms

are, in effect,

a tempered version of the

Protestant ethic 5 which has played such an important part in the ety.

shaping of American character and American soci-

In brief summary, this middle-class ethic prescribes strive, by dint of rational, ascetic, self -disand independent activity, to achieve in worldly

an obligation to ciplined affairs.

A not irrebuttable but common corollary is

sumption that "success"

is itself

the pre-

a sign of the exercise of

these moral qualities.

From another ards

point of view, these middle-class stand-

may be regarded

as the positive evaluation in children

of those characteristics for the

which

facilitate

and lay the ground

achievement of respectable social

class status in

[

88

Growing Up

]

adulthood.

From

System

in a Class

this point of view, there is

an important

continuity and integration of the legitimate expectations

attaching to childhood and adult roles, in the sense that indoctrination with this morality prepares the child for

the easy assumption

One more for the

of,

or success in, the adult roles.

observation

is

here in order. The requisites

achievement of social

class status in the adult role

men and for women w The socia l men and women is that of their family.

are not quite the same for class status of

The

both

status of the fa mily in turn, depends,

more than

it

does on any other one thing, on the occupational achieve -

ment

of the

male "head." The

social class status of

women

depends primarily upon marriage to an occupationally

The road to vertical mobility for men, women, then, is through independent occupational achievement. To the extent that middle-class

successful male.

much more than

for

standards for the evaluation of children are continuous

with adult

roles,

we

should expect these standards to be

different, at least in emphasis, for

boys and

girls.

The

fol-

lowing summary description 6 of these middle-class standards 1.

is

primarily applicable to the male role.

Ambition

is

a virtue;

its

of maladjustment. Ambition

absence

is

a defect

means a high

tion, a spiration for goals difficult of

and a sign

level of a spira-

achievement.

It

means

long-run goa ls and long-deferred means an early determination to "get ahead." It is incumbent upon the good parent to encourage in his children those habits and goals which will help them to be "better off" than himself, and his first duty is to make his child want to "be somebody."

also

an orientation to

r ewards

.

It

:

Growing Up 2.

in a Class

The middle-class

sibility

.

It

System ethic

[

is

89

]

an ethic of individual respo n-

applauds resourcefulness and self-reliance

,

a

reluctance to turn to others for help. In Margaret Mead's

words Parenthood in America has become a very special thing and parents see themselves not as giving their children final status and place, rooting them firmly for life in a dependable social structure, but merely as training them for a race which they run alone.*

will

Although

it

recognizes, as does the ethic of every society,

a certain virtue in generosity, to share

insofar as this obligation

achievement of one's

own

to help, spontaneously

men all,

in distress, a

but nobody

3.

it

minimizes the obligation

with others, even with one's

is

is

kin, especially

with the

goals. If one's first obligation is

and

kind of

own

likely to interfere

unstintingly, friends

minimum

likely to get

security

is

and

kins-

provided for

very far ahead of the game.

Middle-class norms place a high evaluation on the cul-

tivation

and possession of

and on the tangib le

ski lls

ach ievemen ts which are presumed to witness to the possession of skills

and the application of

performance of almost any kind achievement, but there

is

is

effort.

applauded,

special emphasis

achievemen t and the acquisition of

skills

Outstanding e.g.,

athletic

on academ ic

of potential eco-

nomic and occupational value. 4.

Middle-class norms place great value on "worldly

asceticism," a readiness

and an

ability to

postpone and to

subordinate the temptations of immediate satisfactions and self-indulgence in the interest of the achievement of long*Margaret Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1942), p. 75.

[

90

run

Growing Up

]

goals. Industry

and

thrift,

in a Class

System

even divorced from any

conscious utilitarian objectives, are admirable in themselves. 5.

Rationality

is

highly valued, in the sense of the exer-

cise of forethought, Qpnscious

.time,

and the

planning the budgeting o f ,

allocation of resources in the

and technologically most

efficient

most economic

way. This involves a

dis-

inclination to trust to the irrational workings of chance

and moral suspiciousness of gambling despite the fact that gambling enjoys a certain shady popularity among many middle-class adults and children. 6. The middle-class value system rewards and encourages the rational cultivation of jsojoajaility.

maimers,

c ourtesy and_^er-

In the middle-class world, mastery of certain

conventions of speech and gesture carry prestige and are instrumental to success. Furthermore, and

more impor-

tantly, the middle-class adult, especially the male, circulates in a

world of numerous transient and segmental but

highly important secondary-group relationships.

"make

A facility

and inpeople." or at least to avoid antagonizing them is A pamphlet published by the National Association

in such relationships,

an

ability to

friends

fluence vital.

of Manufacturers for free distribution to school children

and It

significantly entitled

Your Future

is

What You Make

neatly expresses this theme:

Here's an item for your personal rule book: Don't let your courtesy get rusty. You'll have to get along with all the people around you, so treat them as you wish to be treated. In any organization, there's a certain amount of friction. No wonder we prize those persons who make life happier by helping to reduce it! Getting along with people is one of the most impor-

Growing Up

in a Class

System

[

who want

taut requirements for those

to get

91

]

ahead on the job—

or off.*

The achievement

of these skills necessarily implies the

cultivation of patience, self-control

and the

inhibition of

spontaneity.

The middle-class

7.

£n

]

me

nffirregsjo n

ethic emphasizes the control of

phy s-

and^violen ce, which are subversive, on the

hand, of good personal relations with as

many

people

on the other hand, of an impersonal comwhich intellectual, technical and social

as possible and,

petitive order in skills 8.

may

realize their

not "waste" time but Play

maximum

value.

Recreation should be "wholeso me." That

is

s

pend

is,

one should

his leisure "constructive ly."

necessary and desirable, but play gains in merit to

the degree that

opment

it

involves

some measure

of foresight,

and sustained endeavor toward the devel-

study, practice

of a collection, a skill or a

fund of specialized

knowledge. Hence the pride and pleasure of the middleclass 9.

parent in his children's pursuit of a "hobby." Lastly, middle-class values

propcxty." This does not

nor does

it

mean

mean

emphasize "respect

f or

a desire for material goods

simple "honesty."

It

means a

particular

cluster of attitudes regarding the nature of property rights

and the significance of property. It includes an emphasis on the right of the owner to do as he wishes with his belongings versus an emphasis on the claims of others

who may

stand in primary-group relation-

ships to the owner. It includes *Your Future

is

What You Make

of Manufacturers, 1947), pp. 23-24.

It

an emphasis on the (New

explicit

York: National Association

[

92

Growing Up

]

in a Class

System

consent of the owner prior to the use or conversion of his articles of

property versus "helping yourself" with the

understanding that the willingness and the obligation to share

is

implicit in your relationship to the owner. It in-

cludes a quasi-sacred attitude toward things, whether others' or one's

own

or collective property. Things are to

be husbanded, treated carelessly

The

wantonly wasted,

carefully, not

abused or destroyed.

orderly functioning of the middle-class economic

world depends upon a system of ing, the clear

and precise

strict

property account-

allocation of property rights to

individuals or the incumbents of certain offices, transfer of rights to access, control

and usufruct

and the

in accord-

ance with fixed and formal procedures, either an

explicit

by a duly authorized official or an act of contract. Casualness and imprecision in the allocation and delimitation of property rights and failure to signalize changes in these rights by written instrument or explicit verbal understandings are a source of confusion and conflict in the world of commerce and largeact of giving, a decree or order

scale organization. Children,

it is felt,

should get into the

habit of thinking in these terms.

Another source of lies in

on respect

dint of his

own efforts.

by others and

mized. Such claims

make

own way

his

most

in the

world by

His claims on the resources accumu-

their claims still exist,

on

his resources are mini-

particularly

kin and friends, but they are more in

for property

the ethic of individual responsibility. This means

that a person should

lated

this stress

cultures. Insofar as giving

between

close

severely limited than

and sharing are ap-

Growing Up

proved

(

in a Class

"Don't be

System

[

your

selfish; let

little

93

]

brother play with

your toys!") the emphasis tends to be placed on the merit of the giver rather than

on the right of the

Property furthermore, ,

thetic value, but is

recipient.

not only of utilitarian or es-

extraordinarily ego-involved , for

it is

it

the rnn